lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 10/12] iommu: Prepare IOMMU domain for IOPF
Hi Baolu,

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 04:31:38PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/5/4 02:20, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > index 7cae631c1baa..33449523afbe 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > @@ -3174,3 +3174,24 @@ void iommu_detach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > iommu_group_put(group);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +struct iommu_domain *iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid(struct device *dev,
> > > + ioasid_t pasid)
> > > +{
> > > + struct iommu_domain *domain;
> > > + struct iommu_group *group;
> > > +
> > > + if (!pasid_valid(pasid))
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + group = iommu_group_get(dev);
> > > + if (!group)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
> > Unfortunately this still causes the deadlock when unbind() flushes the
> > IOPF queue while holding the group mutex.
>
> Sorry, I didn't get your point here.
>
> Do you mean unbind() could hold group mutex before calling this helper?
> The group mutex is only available in iommu.c. The unbind() has no means
> to hold this lock. Or, I missed anything?

I wasn't clear, it's iommu_detach_device_pasid() that holds the
group->mutex:

iommu_sva_unbind_device() |
iommu_detach_device_pasid() |
mutex_lock(&group->mutex) |
domain->ops->detach_dev_pasid() | iopf_handle_group()
iopf_queue_flush_dev() | iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid()
... wait for IOPF work | mutex_lock(&group->mutex)
| ... deadlock

Thanks,
Jean

>
> Best regards,
> baolu
>
> >
> > If we make this function private to IOPF, then we can get rid of this
> > mutex_lock(). It's OK because:
> >
> > * xarray protects its internal state with RCU, so we can call
> > xa_load() outside the lock.
> >
> > * The domain obtained from xa_load is finalized. Its content is valid
> > because xarray stores the domain using rcu_assign_pointer(), which has a
> > release memory barrier, which pairs with data dependencies in IOPF
> > (domain->sva_ioas etc).
> >
> > We'll need to be careful about this when allowing other users to install
> > a fault handler. Should be fine as long as the handler and data are
> > installed before the domain is added to pasid_array.
> >
> > * We know the domain is valid the whole time IOPF is using it, because
> > unbind() waits for pending faults.
> >
> > We just need a comment explaining the last point, something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * Safe to fetch outside the group mutex because:
> > * - xarray protects its internal state with RCU
> > * - the domain obtained is either NULL or fully formed
> > * - the IOPF work is the only caller and is flushed before the
> > * domain is freed.
> > */
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jean
> >
> > > + domain = xa_load(&group->pasid_array, pasid);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&group->mutex);
> > > + iommu_group_put(group);
> > > +
> > > + return domain;
> > > +}
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-05 15:40    [W:0.094 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site