On 06/20/2013 01:49 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:50 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 11:58 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>>> Alex, any objection ?
>>>
>>> Which Alex? :)
>>
>> Heh, mostly Williamson in this specific case but your input is still
>> welcome :-)
>>
>>> I think validate works, it keeps iteration logic out of the kernel
>>> which is a good thing. There still needs to be an interface for
>>> getting the iommu id in VFIO, but I suppose that one's for the other
>>> Alex and Jörg to comment on.
>>
>> I think getting the iommu fd is already covered by separate patches from
>> Alexey.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Do we need to make it a get/put interface instead ?
>>>>
>>>> vfio_validate_and_use_iommu(file, iommu_id);
>>>>
>>>> vfio_release_iommu(file, iommu_id);
>>>>
>>>> To ensure that the resource remains owned by the process until KVM
>>>> is closed as well ?
>>>>
>>>> Or do we want to register with VFIO with a callback so that VFIO can
>>>> call us if it needs us to give it up ?
>>>
>>> Can't we just register a handler on the fd and get notified when it
>>> closes? Can you kill VFIO access without closing the fd?
>>
>> That sounds actually harder :-)
>>
>> The question is basically: When we validate that relationship between a
>> specific VFIO struct file with an iommu, what is the lifetime of that
>> and how do we handle this lifetime properly.
>>
>> There's two ways for that sort of situation: The notification model
>> where we get notified when the relationship is broken, and the refcount
>> model where we become a "user" and thus delay the breaking of the
>> relationship until we have been disposed of as well.
>>
>> In this specific case, it's hard to tell what is the right model from my
>> perspective, which is why I would welcome Alex (W.) input.
>>
>> In the end, the solution will end up being in the form of APIs exposed
>> by VFIO for use by KVM (via that symbol lookup mechanism) so Alex (W),
>> as owner of VFIO at this stage, what do you want those to look
>> like ? :-)
>
> My first thought is that we should use the same reference counting as we
> have for vfio devices (group->container_users). An interface for that
> might look like:
>
> int vfio_group_add_external_user(struct file *filep)
> {
> struct vfio_group *group = filep->private_data;
>
> if (filep->f_op != &vfio_group_fops)
> return -EINVAL;
>
>
> if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&group->container_users))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> void vfio_group_del_external_user(struct file *filep)
> {
> struct vfio_group *group = filep->private_data;
>
> BUG_ON(filep->f_op != &vfio_group_fops);
>
> vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
> }
>
> int vfio_group_iommu_id_from_file(struct file *filep)
> {
> struct vfio_group *group = filep->private_data;
>
> BUG_ON(filep->f_op != &vfio_group_fops);
>
> return iommu_group_id(group->iommu_group);
> }
>
> Would that work? Thanks,
Just out of curiosity - would not get_file() and fput_atomic() on a group's
file* do the right job instead of vfio_group_add_external_user() and
vfio_group_del_external_user()?
--
Alexey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
