On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 20:51:43 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:59:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:57:25 -0700 > > Anthony DeRossi <ajderossi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > In vfio_device_open(), vfio_container_device_register() is always called > > > when open_count == 1. On error, vfio_device_container_unregister() is > > > only called when open_count == 1 and close_device is set. This leaks a > > > registration for devices without a close_device implementation. > > > > > > In vfio_device_fops_release(), vfio_device_container_unregister() is > > > called unconditionally. This can cause a device to be unregistered > > > multiple times. > > > > > > Treating container device registration/unregistration uniformly (always > > > when open_count == 1) fixes both issues. > > > > Good catch, I see that Jason does subtly fix this in "vfio: Move > > vfio_device driver open/close code to a function", but I'd rather see > > it more overtly fixed in a discrete patch like this. All "real" > > drivers provide a close_device callback, but mdpy and mtty do not. > > Given it only impacts the samples maybe I should just stick it in the > iommufd series before that patch? The series in general though fixes a regression. Is there any reason we shouldn't try to push it into 6.1? Thanks, Alex
