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

From: David Gibson
Date: Sat Jun 22 2013 - 08:06:03 EST

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:55:13AM -0600, 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.

Uhh... *thinks*. Ah, I see.

I think the interface should not take the group fd, but the container
fd. Holding a reference to *that* would keep the necessary things
around. But more to the point, it's the right thing semantically:

The container is essentially the handle on a host iommu address space,
and so that's what should be bound by the KVM call to a particular
guest iommu address space. e.g. it would make no sense to bind two
different groups to different guest iommu address spaces, if they were
in the same container - the guest thinks they are different spaces,
but if they're in the same container they must be the same space.

David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature