czw., 25 maj 2023 o 22:41 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
napisał(a):
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 16:58:11 +0000
> Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > To allow pass-through devices receiving ACPI notifications, permit to
> > register ACPI notify handler (via VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS) for a given
> > device. The handler role is to receive and propagate such ACPI
> > notifications to the user-space through the user provided eventfd. This
> > allows VMM to receive and propagate them further to the VM, where the
> > actual driver for pass-through device resides and can react to device
> > specific notifications accordingly.
> >
> > The eventfd usage ensures VMM and device isolation: it allows to use a
> > dedicated channel associated with the device for such events, such that
> > the VMM has direct access.
> >
> > Since the eventfd counter is used as ACPI notification value
> > placeholder, the eventfd signaling needs to be serialized in order to
> > not end up with notification values being coalesced. Therefore ACPI
> > notification values are buffered and signalized one by one, when the
> > previous notification value has been consumed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changelog v3..v4
> > Address Alex Williamson feedback:
> > - Instead of introducing new ioctl used for eventfd registration, take
> > advantage of VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS which already supports virtual IRQs
> > for things like error notification and device release requests.
> > - Introduced mechanism preventing creation of large queues.
> > Other:
> > - Move the implementation into the newly introduced VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY
> > helper module. It is actually not bound to VFIO_PCI but VFIO_PCI
> > enables it whenever ACPI support is enabled. This change is introduced
> > since ACPI notifications are not limited to PCI devices, making it PCI
> > independent will allow to re-use it also for other VFIO_* like
> > supports: e.g. VFIO_PLATFORM in the future if needed. Moving it out of
> > drivers/vfio/pci/ was also suggested offline.
>
> We don't require a separate module for such re-use, see for instance
> vfio's virqfd code, which was previously a helper module like this but
> the argument for e2d55709398e ("vfio: Fold vfio_virqfd.ko into
> vfio.ko") was that the code size doesn't warrant a separate module and
> we can still optionally include it as part of vfio.ko via Kconfig.
Ok
>
> > - s/notify_val_next/node
> > - v3: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/patch/20230502132700.654528-1-jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Changelog v2..v3:
> > - Fix compilation warnings when building with "W=1"
> >
> > Changelog v1..v2:
> > - The v2 implementation is actually completely different then v1:
> > instead of using acpi netlink events for propagating ACPI
> > notifications to the user space take advantage of eventfd, which can
> > provide better VMM and device isolation: it allows to use a dedicated
> > channel associated with the device for such events, such that the VMM
> > has direct access.
> > - Using eventfd counter as notification value placeholder was suggested
> > in v1 and requires additional serialization logic introduced in v2.
> > - Since the vfio-pci supports non-ACPI platforms address !CONFIG_ACPI
> > case.
> > - v1 discussion: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/patch/20230307220553.631069-1-jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > ---
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/Kconfig | 5 +
> > drivers/vfio/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 9 ++
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 73 ++++++++++
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_acpi_notify.c | 219 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h | 40 ++++++
> > include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h | 1 +
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 1 +
> > 9 files changed, 350 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/vfio/vfio_acpi_notify.c
> > create mode 100644 include/linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
> > index 89e06c981e43..7822b0d8e7b1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
> > @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ menuconfig VFIO
> > If you don't know what to do here, say N.
> >
> > if VFIO
> > +config VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY
> > + tristate
> > + depends on ACPI
> > + default n
> > +
> > config VFIO_CONTAINER
> > bool "Support for the VFIO container /dev/vfio/vfio"
> > select VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1 if MMU && (X86 || S390 || ARM || ARM64)
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Makefile b/drivers/vfio/Makefile
> > index 70e7dcb302ef..129c121b503d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/Makefile
> > @@ -14,3 +14,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI) += pci/
> > obj-$(CONFIG_VFIO_PLATFORM) += platform/
> > obj-$(CONFIG_VFIO_MDEV) += mdev/
> > obj-$(CONFIG_VFIO_FSL_MC) += fsl-mc/
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY) += vfio_acpi_notify.o
>
> Given complaints by Linus about redundant file names, we should drop
> the prefix from the source file and just name this acpi_notify.c/o.
>
> This becomes:
>
> vfio-$(CONFIG_VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY) += acpi_notify.o
>
> when folded into vfio.ko.
Sure
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > index f9d0c908e738..5d229dbd074c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ config VFIO_PCI_INTX
> > config VFIO_PCI
> > tristate "Generic VFIO support for any PCI device"
> > select VFIO_PCI_CORE
> > + select VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY if ACPI
> > help
> > Support for the generic PCI VFIO bus driver which can connect any
> > PCI device to the VFIO framework.
>
> This should be in the VFIO_PCI_CORE config section.
Ok
>
> It looks like there's currently a bug in the mlx5 and hisi_acc vfio-pci
> variant driver Kconfigs that they depend on VFIO_PCI_CORE rather than
> select it, therefore they implicitly depend on VFIO_PCI to have selected
> VFIO_PCI_CORE here, but instead it should really be possible to build
> without vfio-pci but with mlx5-vfio-pci if so desired. We can at least
> select this through VFIO_PCI_CORE though.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> > index a5ab416cf476..b42299396d81 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > #include <linux/vgaarb.h>
> > #include <linux/nospec.h>
> > #include <linux/sched/mm.h>
> > +#include <linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h>
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EEH)
> > #include <asm/eeh.h>
> > #endif
> > @@ -683,6 +684,7 @@ void vfio_pci_core_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev)
> > {
> > struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev =
> > container_of(core_vdev, struct vfio_pci_core_device, vdev);
> > + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&vdev->pdev->dev);
> >
> > if (vdev->sriov_pf_core_dev) {
> > mutex_lock(&vdev->sriov_pf_core_dev->vf_token->lock);
> > @@ -705,6 +707,11 @@ void vfio_pci_core_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev)
> > vdev->req_trigger = NULL;
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&vdev->igate);
> > +
> > + if (adev) {
> > + vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(vdev->acpi_notification, adev);
> > + vdev->acpi_notification = NULL;
> > + }
>
> Why doesn't this happen under igate like the cleanup of the error and
> request virtual IRQs immediately preceding this?
I will move it under igate.
>
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_pci_core_close_device);
> >
> > @@ -761,6 +768,8 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_irq_count(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int irq_typ
> > return 1;
> > } else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX) {
> > return 1;
> > + } else if (irq_type == VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX) {
> > + return 1;
>
> Why isn't this at least conditional a companion ACPI device?
Ok, I will make it ACPI companion device dependent.
>
> Can we drop the NTFY and just use VFIO_PCI_ACPI_IRQ_INDEX?
ACPI_IRQ at first glance could be confused with SCI, which is e.g.
registered as "acpi" irq seen in /proc/interrupts, maybe it is worth
keeping NTFY here to emphasise the "Notify" part?
>
> There's nothing added to vfio_pci_ioctl_get_irq_info() to support this
> IRQ index.
I will add.
>
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > index bffb0741518b..e28f70c213ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > * Author: Tom Lyon, pugs@xxxxxxxxx
> > */
> >
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > #include <linux/device.h>
> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > #include <linux/eventfd.h>
> > @@ -19,6 +20,7 @@
> > #include <linux/vfio.h>
> > #include <linux/wait.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h>
>
> This includes acpi.h, we shouldn't need to include both.
Sure
>
> >
> > #include "vfio_pci_priv.h"
> >
> > @@ -667,6 +669,63 @@ static int vfio_pci_set_req_trigger(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > count, flags, data);
> > }
> >
> > +static int
> > +vfio_pci_set_acpi_ntfy_trigger(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > + unsigned int index, unsigned int start,
> > + unsigned int count, uint32_t flags, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&vdev->pdev->dev);
> > +
> > + if (index != VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX || start != 0 || count > 1)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (!vdev->acpi_notification)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Disable notifications: flags = (DATA_NONE|ACTION_TRIGGER), count = 0
> > + * Enable loopback testing: (DATA_BOOL|ACTION_TRIGGER)
> > + */
> > + if (flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE) {
> > + if (!count) {
> > + vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(vdev->acpi_notification, adev);
> > + vdev->acpi_notification = NULL;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> Generally a non-zero count should trigger a notification, the unique
> thing here is that notifications have values. Since these are for
> loopback testing, maybe this should be defined to send a device check
> value.
Ok, I will do as suggested and send ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK for the
non-zero count case.
>
> > + } else if (flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_BOOL) {
> > + u32 notification_val;
> > +
> > + if (!count)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + notification_val = *(u32 *)data;
>
> DATA_BOOL is defined as a u8, and of course also as a bool, so we
> expect only zero/non-zero. I think a valid interpretation would be any
> non-zero value generates a device check notification value.
Maybe it would be helpful and ease testing if we could use u8 as a
notification value placeholder so it would be more flexible?
Notification values from 0x80 to 0xBF are device-specific, 0xC0 and
above are reserved for definition by hardware vendors for hardware
specific notifications and BTW in practice I didn't see notification
values that do not fit in u8 but even if exist we can limit to u8 and
gain some flexibility anyway. Please let me know what you think.
>
> > + vfio_acpi_notify(NULL, notification_val, vdev->acpi_notification);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +vfio_pci_set_acpi_ntfy_eventfd_trigger(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > + unsigned int index, unsigned int start,
> > + unsigned int count, uint32_t flags, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&vdev->pdev->dev);
> > + int32_t fd;
> > +
> > + if (index != VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX || start != 0 || count != 1)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (!adev)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + fd = *(int32_t *)data;
> > +
> > + return vfio_register_acpi_notify_handler(&vdev->acpi_notification, adev, fd);
> > +}
> > +
> > int vfio_pci_set_irqs_ioctl(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, uint32_t flags,
> > unsigned index, unsigned start, unsigned count,
> > void *data)
> > @@ -716,6 +775,20 @@ int vfio_pci_set_irqs_ioctl(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, uint32_t flags,
> > break;
> > }
> > break;
> > + case VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX:
> > + switch (flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_ACTION_TYPE_MASK) {
> > + case VFIO_IRQ_SET_ACTION_TRIGGER:
> > + switch (flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_TYPE_MASK) {
> > + case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_BOOL:
> > + case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_NONE:
> > + func = vfio_pci_set_acpi_ntfy_trigger;
> > + break;
> > + case VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_EVENTFD:
> > + func = vfio_pci_set_acpi_ntfy_eventfd_trigger;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + break;
> > }
> >
> > if (!func)
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_acpi_notify.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_acpi_notify.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..8ef4db4b43b3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_acpi_notify.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > +/*
> > + * VFIO ACPI notification propagation
> > + *
> > + * Author: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > + */
> > +#include <linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h>
> > +
> > +#define DRIVER_AUTHOR "Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>"
> > +#define DRIVER_DESC "ACPI notification propagation helper module for VFIO based devices"
> > +
> > +#define NOTIFICATION_QUEUE_SIZE 20
> > +
> > +struct notification_queue {
> > + int notification_val;
> > + struct list_head node;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int vfio_eventfd_wakeup(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned int mode,
> > + int sync, void *key)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify =
> > + container_of(wait, struct vfio_acpi_notification, wait);
> > + __poll_t flags = key_to_poll(key);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * eventfd_read signalize EPOLLOUT at the end of its function - this
> > + * means previous eventfd with its notification value was consumed so
> > + * the next notification can be signalized now if pending - schedule
> > + * proper work.
> > + */
> > + if (flags & EPOLLOUT) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_notify->notification_lock);
> > + schedule_work(&acpi_notify->acpi_notification_work);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void vfio_ptable_queue_proc(struct file *file,
> > + wait_queue_head_t *wqh, poll_table *pt)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify =
> > + container_of(pt, struct vfio_acpi_notification, pt);
> > +
> > + add_wait_queue(wqh, &acpi_notify->wait);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void acpi_notification_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify;
> > + struct notification_queue *entry;
> > +
> > + acpi_notify = container_of(work, struct vfio_acpi_notification,
> > + acpi_notification_work);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > + if (list_empty(&acpi_notify->notification_list) || !acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger)
> > + goto out;
>
> Do we really even need to queue notifications if userspace hasn't
> registered an eventfd for signaling?
We don't, the !acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger check is a leftover
from one of the previous implementations - I will drop it.
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the previous eventfd was not yet consumed by user-space lets hold
> > + * on and exit. The notification function will be rescheduled when
> > + * signaling eventfd will be possible (when the EPOLLOUT will be
> > + * signalized and unlocks notify_events).
> > + */
> > + if (!mutex_trylock(&acpi_notify->notification_lock))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + entry = list_first_entry(&acpi_notify->notification_list,
> > + struct notification_queue, node);
> > +
> > + list_del(&entry->node);
> > + acpi_notify->notification_queue_count--;
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > +
> > + eventfd_signal(acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger, entry->notification_val);
> > +
> > + kfree(entry);
> > +
> > + return;
> > +out:
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void vfio_acpi_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify = (struct vfio_acpi_notification *)data;
> > + struct notification_queue *entry;
> > +
> > + entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!entry)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + entry->notification_val = event;
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->node);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > + if (acpi_notify->notification_queue_count > NOTIFICATION_QUEUE_SIZE) {
> > + struct notification_queue *oldest_entry;
> > +
> > + oldest_entry = list_first_entry(&acpi_notify->notification_list,
> > + struct notification_queue,
> > + node);
> > + list_del(&oldest_entry->node);
> > + acpi_notify->notification_queue_count--;
>
> Seems like there should be a "remove and return oldest notification"
> helper function to be use here and in the work function.
Ok
>
> I'd think there should also be some sort of rate limited logging fro
> dropped notifications.
Sure
>
> > + kfree(oldest_entry);
> > +
> > + }
> > + list_add_tail(&entry->node, &acpi_notify->notification_list);
> > + acpi_notify->notification_queue_count++;
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > +
> > + schedule_work(&acpi_notify->acpi_notification_work);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_acpi_notify);
> > +
> > +void vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev)
> > +{
> > + struct notification_queue *entry, *entry_tmp;
> > + u64 cnt;
> > +
> > + if (!acpi_notify || !acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger)
> > + return;
>
> I don't see a case where this code supports an acpi_notify without an
> acpi_notify_trigger.
Agree, I will drop !acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger check.
>
> > +
> > + acpi_remove_notify_handler(adev->handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > + vfio_acpi_notify);
> > +
> > + eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue(acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger,
> > + &acpi_notify->wait, &cnt);
> > +
> > + flush_work(&acpi_notify->acpi_notification_work);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, entry_tmp,
> > + &acpi_notify->notification_list,
> > + node) {
> > + list_del(&entry->node);
> > + kfree(entry);
> > + }
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_notify->notification_list_lock);
> > +
> > + eventfd_ctx_put(acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger);
> > +
> > + kfree(acpi_notify);
>
> Split ownership between this code and the caller for the
> vfio_acpi_notification object is troublesome. If this code allocates
> and sets the pointer, it should also own the cleanup of that pointer.
> See for instance the issue below.
Good point.
>
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup);
> > +
> > +int vfio_register_acpi_notify_handler(struct vfio_acpi_notification **acpi_notify_ptr,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev, int32_t fd)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify = *acpi_notify_ptr;
> > + struct file *acpi_notify_trigger_file;
> > + struct eventfd_ctx *efdctx;
> > + acpi_status status;
> > +
> > + if (fd < -1)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + else if (fd == -1)
> > + vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(acpi_notify, adev);
>
> return 0;? Otherwise we have an immediate use after free followed by
> an fdget(-1), either of which return error if not segfault for a valid
> and successful path.
Sure, good catch.
>
> > +
> > + if (acpi_notify && acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger)
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> Existing handlers allow the eventfd to be swapped here.
Ok I will implement it here as well.
>
> > +
> > + efdctx = eventfd_ctx_fdget(fd);
> > + if (IS_ERR(efdctx))
> > + return PTR_ERR(efdctx);
> > +
> > + acpi_notify = kzalloc(sizeof(*acpi_notify), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT
Ok
>
> > + if (!acpi_notify)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + *acpi_notify_ptr = acpi_notify;
> > +
> > + INIT_WORK(&acpi_notify->acpi_notification_work, acpi_notification_work_fn);
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&acpi_notify->notification_list);
> > +
> > + acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger = efdctx;
> > +
> > + mutex_init(&acpi_notify->notification_lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Install custom wake-up handler to be notified whenever underlying
> > + * eventfd is consumed by the user-space.
> > + */
> > + init_waitqueue_func_entry(&acpi_notify->wait, vfio_eventfd_wakeup);
> > + init_poll_funcptr(&acpi_notify->pt, vfio_ptable_queue_proc);
> > +
> > + acpi_notify_trigger_file = eventfd_fget(fd);
> > + vfs_poll(acpi_notify_trigger_file, &acpi_notify->pt);
> > +
> > + status = acpi_install_notify_handler(adev->handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > + vfio_acpi_notify, (void *)acpi_notify);
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> > + u64 cnt;
> > +
> > + dev_err(&adev->dev, "Failed to install notify handler: %s",
> > + acpi_format_exception(status));
> > +
> > + eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue(acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger,
> > + &acpi_notify->wait, &cnt);
> > +
> > + flush_work(&acpi_notify->acpi_notification_work);
> > +
> > + eventfd_ctx_put(acpi_notify->acpi_notify_trigger);
> > +
> > + kfree(acpi_notify);
>
> This shares a lot of code with the cleanup path, it should be factored
> into a common helper.
Ok, I will add a helper function.
>
> > +
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> This doesn't cleanup acpi_notify_ptr therefore a subsequent attempt to
> register a handler or cleanup the handler would result in various use
> after free scenarios.
Sure, good catch.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_register_acpi_notify_handler);
> > +
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR(DRIVER_AUTHOR);
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION(DRIVER_DESC);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h b/include/linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..2722ad24d8e3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/linux/vfio_acpi_notify.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > +/*
> > + * VFIO ACPI notification replication
> > + *
> > + * Author: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > + */
>
> Headers should have protection from multiple inclusions, ie.:
>
> #ifndef VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY_H
> #define VFIO_ACPI_NOTIFY_H
>
> And a closing #endif at the end.
Sure.
Thank you for your review and feedback!
Grzegorz
>
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > +#include <linux/eventfd.h>
> > +#include <linux/poll.h>
> > +
> > +struct vfio_acpi_notification {
> > + struct eventfd_ctx *acpi_notify_trigger;
> > + struct work_struct acpi_notification_work;
> > + struct list_head notification_list;
> > + struct mutex notification_list_lock;
> > + struct mutex notification_lock;
> > + int notification_queue_count;
> > + poll_table pt;
> > + wait_queue_entry_t wait;
> > +};
> > +
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
> > +void vfio_acpi_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data);
> > +int vfio_register_acpi_notify_handler(struct vfio_acpi_notification **acpi_notify,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev, int32_t fd);
> > +void vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev);
> > +#else
> > +static inline void vfio_acpi_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) {}
> > +static inline int
> > +vfio_register_acpi_notify_handler(struct vfio_acpi_notification **acpi_notify,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev, int32_t fd)
> > +{
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void
> > +vfio_acpi_notify_cleanup(struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notify,
> > + struct acpi_device *adev) {}
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
> > diff --git a/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h b/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> > index 367fd79226a3..a4491b3d8064 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/vfio_pci_core.h
> > @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ struct vfio_pci_core_device {
> > struct mutex vma_lock;
> > struct list_head vma_list;
> > struct rw_semaphore memory_lock;
> > + struct vfio_acpi_notification *acpi_notification;
> > };
> >
> > /* Will be exported for vfio pci drivers usage */
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > index 0552e8dcf0cb..b2619fd16cc4 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -625,6 +625,7 @@ enum {
> > VFIO_PCI_MSIX_IRQ_INDEX,
> > VFIO_PCI_ERR_IRQ_INDEX,
> > VFIO_PCI_REQ_IRQ_INDEX,
> > + VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX,
> > VFIO_PCI_NUM_IRQS
> > };
> >
>
