Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Date: Sat Jun 22 2013 - 04:26:00 EST

On 06/21/2013 12:55 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 18:48 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 06/20/2013 05:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 15:28 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>>>>> 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()?
>>>> I was thinking that too. Grabbing a file reference would certainly be
>>>> the usual way of handling this sort of thing.
>>> But that wouldn't prevent the group ownership to be returned to
>>> the kernel or another user would it ?
>> Holding the file pointer does not let the group->container_users counter go
>> to zero
> How so? Holding the file pointer means the file won't go away, which
> means the group release function won't be called. That means the group
> won't go away, but that doesn't mean it's attached to an IOMMU. A user
> could call UNSET_CONTAINER.
>> and this is exactly what vfio_group_add_external_user() and
>> vfio_group_del_external_user() do. The difference is only in absolute value
>> - 2 vs. 3.
>> No change in behaviour whether I use new vfio API or simply hold file* till
>> KVM closes fd created when IOMMU was connected to LIOBN.
> By that notion you could open(/dev/vfio/$GROUP) and you're safe, right?
> But what about SET_CONTAINER & SET_IOMMU? All that you guarantee
> holding the file pointer is that the vfio_group exists.
>> And while this counter is not zero, QEMU cannot take ownership over the group.
>> I am definitely still missing the bigger picture...
> The bigger picture is that the group needs to exist AND it needs to be
> setup and maintained to have IOMMU protection. Actually, my first stab
> at add_external_user doesn't look sufficient, it needs to look more like
> vfio_group_get_device_fd, checking group->container->iommu and
> group_viable().

This makes sense. If you did this, that would be great. Without it, I
really cannot see how the proposed inc/dec of container_users is better
than simple holding file*. Thanks.

> As written it would allow an external user after
> SET_CONTAINER without SET_IOMMU. It should also be part of the API that
> the external user must hold the file reference between add_external_use
> and del_external_user and do cleanup on any exit paths. Thanks,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at