> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1:25 AM
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:23PM -0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * iommufd_device_pasid_detach - Disconnect a {device, pasid} to an
> iommu_domain
> > + * @idev: device to detach
> > + * @pasid: pasid to detach
> > + *
> > + * Undo iommufd_device_pasid_attach(). This disconnects the idev/pasid
> from
> > + * the previously attached pt_id.
> > + */
> > +void iommufd_device_pasid_detach(struct iommufd_device *idev, u32
> pasid)
> > +{
> > + struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt;
> > +
> > + hwpt = xa_load(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid);
> > + if (!hwpt)
> > + return;
> > + xa_erase(&idev->pasid_hwpts, pasid);
> > + iommu_detach_device_pasid(hwpt->domain, idev->dev, pasid);
> > + iommufd_hw_pagetable_put(idev->ictx, hwpt);
> > +}
>
> None of this xarray stuff looks locked properly
>
I had an impression from past discussions that the caller should not
race attach/detach/replace on same device or pasid, otherwise it is
already a problem in a higher level.
and the original intention of the group lock was to ensure all devices
in the group have a same view. Not exactly to guard concurrent
attach/detach.
If this understanding is incorrect we can add a lock for sure. 😊
