On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 18:16:00 +0300
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +
> +static int vfio_pci_sriov_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, int nr_virtfn)
> +{
> + might_sleep();
vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure() retained the might_sleep(), it
shouldn't be needed here.
> +
> + if (!enable_sriov)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + return vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure(pdev, nr_virtfn);
> +}
...
> @@ -509,7 +449,7 @@ static struct vfio_pci_core_device *get_pf_vdev(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vde
> if (!pf_dev)
> return NULL;
>
> - if (pci_dev_driver(physfn) != &vfio_pci_driver) {
> + if (pci_dev_driver(physfn) != pci_dev_driver(vdev->pdev)) {
I think this means that the PF and VF must use the same vfio-pci
"variant" driver, it's too bad we're not enabling vfio-pci to own the
PF while vfio-vendor-foo-pci owns the VF since our SR-IOV security
model remains in the core. We can work on that later though, no loss
of functionality here.
...
> @@ -1795,12 +1723,12 @@ static int vfio_pci_bus_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> pci_info(vdev->pdev, "Captured SR-IOV VF %s driver_override\n",
> pci_name(pdev));
> pdev->driver_override = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s",
> - vfio_pci_ops.name);
> + vdev->vdev.ops->name);
> } else if (action == BUS_NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER &&
> pdev->is_virtfn && physfn == vdev->pdev) {
> struct pci_driver *drv = pci_dev_driver(pdev);
>
> - if (drv && drv != &vfio_pci_driver)
> + if (drv && drv != pci_dev_driver(vdev->pdev))
> pci_warn(vdev->pdev,
> "VF %s bound to driver %s while PF bound to vfio-pci\n",
"vfio-pci" is hardcoded in this comment. There are a few other user
visible instances of this in vfio-pci-core.c as well:
MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_vga, "Disable VGA resource access through vfio-pci");
ret = pci_request_selected_regions(pdev,
1 << index, "vfio-pci");
pci_info_ratelimited(vdev->pdev,
"VF token incorrectly provided, PF not bound to vfio-pci\n");
We should try to fix or reword as many of these as we reasonably can.
Thanks,
Alex
