On 3/4/25 9:27 AM, Anthony Krowiak wrote:
On 3/4/25 9:18 AM, Rorie Reyes wrote:
On 3/4/25 8:36 AM, Anthony Krowiak wrote:
static void vfio_ap_mdev_update_guest_apcb(struct
ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
@@ -1870,7 +1870,6 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct
ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
get_update_locks_for_kvm(kvm);
kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(kvm);
- signal_guest_ap_cfg_changed(matrix_mdev);
vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev);
kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
@@ -2057,6 +2056,14 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_request(struct
vfio_device *vdev, unsigned int count)
matrix_mdev = container_of(vdev, struct ap_matrix_mdev, vdev);
+ if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
+ get_update_locks_for_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
I know we talked about this prior to submission of this patch, but
looking at this again I think
you should use the get_update_locks_for_mdev() function for two
reasons:
1. It is safer because it will take the matrix_dev->guests_lock
which will prevent the matrix_mdev->kvm
field from changing before you check it
So I'll replace *get_update_locks_for_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm)* with
*get_update_locks_for_mdev(&matrix_dev->guests_lock)*
See code below:get_update_locks_for_mdev(matrix_mdev)
That function will take the guests_lock
Ah ok, I see now. I'll make those changes. Thank you!
2. I will eliminate the need for the else
get_update_locks_for_mdev(matrix_mdev)
if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
clear the masks
signal guest config changed
}
...
release_update_locks_for_mdev(matrix_mdev); Sorry about not seeing
this before you posted this patch.
+ kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
+ signal_guest_ap_cfg_changed(matrix_mdev);
+ } else {
+ mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
+ }
So remove the else statement that contains the mutex function
