On 06.12.2024 08:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 08:35:47AM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 04.12.2024 20:30, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:16:03 +0100
>>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 06:01:36PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>> On 04.12.2024 10:32, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 09:11:47PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>>>> vfio/mdev is the last user of class_compat, and it doesn't use it for
>>>>>>> the intended purpose. See kdoc of class_compat_register():
>>>>>>> Compatibility class are meant as a temporary user-space compatibility
>>>>>>> workaround when converting a family of class devices to a bus devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, so waht is mdev doing here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition it uses only a part of the class_compat functionality.
>>>>>>> So inline the needed functionality, and afterwards all class_compat
>>>>>>> code can be removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No functional change intended. Compile-tested only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>>>>> index ed4737de4..a22c49804 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>>>>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
>>>>>>> #define DRIVER_AUTHOR "NVIDIA Corporation"
>>>>>>> #define DRIVER_DESC "Mediated device Core Driver"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static struct class_compat *mdev_bus_compat_class;
>>>>>>> +static struct kobject *mdev_bus_kobj;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static LIST_HEAD(mdev_list);
>>>>>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(mdev_list_lock);
>>>>>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ int mdev_register_parent(struct mdev_parent *parent, struct device *dev,
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - ret = class_compat_create_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, dev, NULL);
>>>>>>> + ret = sysfs_create_link(mdev_bus_kobj, &dev->kobj, dev_name(dev));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This feels really wrong, why create a link to a random kobject? Who is
>>>>>> using this kobject link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to create compatibility class link\n");
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ void mdev_unregister_parent(struct mdev_parent *parent)
>>>>>>> dev_info(parent->dev, "MDEV: Unregistering\n");
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> down_write(&parent->unreg_sem);
>>>>>>> - class_compat_remove_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, parent->dev, NULL);
>>>>>>> + sysfs_remove_link(mdev_bus_kobj, dev_name(parent->dev));
>>>>>>> device_for_each_child(parent->dev, NULL, mdev_device_remove_cb);
>>>>>>> parent_remove_sysfs_files(parent);
>>>>>>> up_write(&parent->unreg_sem);
>>>>>>> @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static int __init mdev_init(void)
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - mdev_bus_compat_class = class_compat_register("mdev_bus");
>>>>>>> - if (!mdev_bus_compat_class) {
>>>>>>> + mdev_bus_kobj = class_pseudo_register("mdev_bus");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this isn't a class, so let's not fake it please. Let's fix this
>>>>>> properly, odds are all of this code can just be removed entirely, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After I removed class_compat from i2c core, I asked Alex basically the
>>>>> same thing: whether class_compat support can be removed from vfio/mdev too.
>>>>>
>>>>> His reply:
>>>>> I'm afraid we have active userspace tools dependent on
>>>>> /sys/class/mdev_bus currently, libvirt for one. We link mdev parent
>>>>> devices here and I believe it's the only way for userspace to find
>>>>> those parent devices registered for creating mdev devices. If there's a
>>>>> desire to remove class_compat, we might need to add some mdev
>>>>> infrastructure to register the class ourselves to maintain the parent
>>>>> links.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my understanding that /sys/class/mdev_bus has nothing in common
>>>>> with an actual class, it's just a container for devices which at least
>>>>> partially belong to other classes. And there's user space tools depending
>>>>> on this structure.
>>>>
>>>> That's odd, when this was added, why was it added this way? The
>>>> class_compat stuff is for when classes move around, yet this was always
>>>> done in this way?
>>>>
>>>> And what tools use this symlink today that can't be updated?
>>>
>>> It's been this way for 8 years, so it's hard to remember exact
>>> motivation for using this mechanism, whether we just didn't look hard
>>> enough at the class_compat or it didn't pass by the right set of eyes.
>>> Yes, it's always been this way for the mdev_bus class.
>>>
>>> The intention here is much like other classes, that we have a node in
>>> sysfs where we can find devices that provide a common feature, in this
>>> case providing support for creating and managing vfio mediated devices
>>> (mdevs). The perhaps unique part of this use case is that these devices
>>> aren't strictly mdev providers, they might also belong to another class
>>> and the mdev aspect of their behavior might be dynamically added after
>>> the device itself is added.
>>>
>>> I've done some testing with this series and it does indeed seem to
>>> maintain compatibility with existing userspace tools, mdevctl and
>>> libvirt. We can update these tools, but then we get into the breaking
>>
>> Greg, is this testing, done by Alex, sufficient for you to take the series?
>
> Were devices actually removed from the system and all worked well?
>
>>> userspace and deprecation period questions, where we may further delay
>>> removal of class_compat. Also if we were to re-implement this, is there
>>> a better mechanism than proposed here within the class hierarchy, or
>>> would you recommend a non-class approach? Thanks,
>>>
>>
>> You have /sys/bus/mdev. Couldn't we create a directory here which holds
>> the links to the devices in question?
>
> Links to devices is not what class links are for, so why is this in
> /sys/class/ at all?
>
Complementing what Alex just wrote:
It's my understanding that it's in /sys/class only, because back then, when
the mdev driver was written, class_compat seemed to be a convenient way
to achieve what was required: providing a generic container in sysfs for
arbitrary device links. So it wasn't an informed decision to use /sys/class.
>> Then user space would simply have to switch from /sys/class/mdev_bus
>> to /sys/bus/mdev/<new_dir>.
>
> I think you are confusing what /sys/class/ is for here, if you have
> devices on a "bus" then they need to be in /sys/bus/ class has nothing
> to do with that.
>
> So can we just drop the /sys/class/ mistake entirely?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
