On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 08:46:04AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 3:05 PM > > > > @@ -246,6 +249,18 @@ static int iommufd_device_do_attach(struct > > iommufd_device *idev, > > } > > } > > > > + if (cur_hwpt) { > > + /* Replace the cur_hwpt */ > > + mutex_lock(&cur_hwpt->devices_lock); > > + if (cur_hwpt->ioas != hwpt->ioas) > > + iopt_remove_reserved_iova(&cur_hwpt->ioas->iopt, > > + idev->dev); > > + list_del(&cur_hwpt->hwpt_item); > > emmm shouldn't this be done only when the device is the last > one attached to the hwpt? and if it's the last one you should > also iopt_table_remove_domain() together with list_del, i.e. > similar housekeeping as done in iommufd_device_detach(). You are right. I had another patch on top of this series, moving this list_del() and iopt_table_remove_domain() to the destroy() callback, so I overlooked. And I just found that the list_add_del(hwpt_item) in the IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW_PAGETABLE case doesn't seem to call at the first device's attachment. So, I think that we might need my previous "symmetric" patch in this series too. Will fix in v2. Thanks! Nic