Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: vfio_ap: link the vfio_ap devices to the vfio_ap bus subsystem
From: Pierre Morel
Date: Thu Feb 21 2019 - 04:57:24 EST
On 21/02/2019 08:37, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 20.02.2019 14:12, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
On 18.02.19 19:08, Pierre Morel wrote:
Libudev relies on having a subsystem link for non-root devices. To
avoid libudev (and potentially other userspace tools) choking on the
matrix device let us introduce a vfio_ap bus and with that the vfio_ap
bus subsytem, and make the matrix device reside within it.
Doing this we need to suppress the forced link from the matrix device to
the vfio_ap driver and we suppress the device_type we do not need
anymore.
Since the associated matrix driver is not the vfio_ap driver any more,
we have to change the search for the devices on the vfio_ap driver in
the function vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved.
Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 4 +--
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
index 31c6c84..8e45559 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
@@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv;
-static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = {
- .name = VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME,
-};
-
struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
/* Only type 10 adapters (CEX4 and later) are supported
@@ -62,6 +58,27 @@ static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release(struct device *dev)
kfree(matrix_dev);
}
+static int matrix_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+static struct bus_type matrix_bus = {
+ .name = "vfio_ap",
+ .match = &matrix_bus_match,
+};
+
+static int matrix_probe(struct device *dev)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct device_driver matrix_driver = {
+ .name = "vfio_ap",
+ .bus = &matrix_bus,
+ .probe = matrix_probe,
+};
+
static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
{
int ret;
@@ -71,6 +88,10 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
if (IS_ERR(root_device))
return PTR_ERR(root_device);
+ ret = bus_register(&matrix_bus);
+ if (ret)
+ goto bus_register_err;
+
matrix_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*matrix_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!matrix_dev) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
@@ -87,30 +108,41 @@ static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_create(void)
mutex_init(&matrix_dev->lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matrix_dev->mdev_list);
- matrix_dev->device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type;
dev_set_name(&matrix_dev->device, "%s", VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME);
matrix_dev->device.parent = root_device;
+ matrix_dev->device.bus = &matrix_bus;
matrix_dev->device.release = vfio_ap_matrix_dev_release;
- matrix_dev->device.driver = &vfio_ap_drv.driver;
+ matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv = &vfio_ap_drv;
ret = device_register(&matrix_dev->device);
if (ret)
goto matrix_reg_err;
+ ret = driver_register(&matrix_driver);
+ if (ret)
+ goto matrix_drv_err;
+
return 0;
+matrix_drv_err:
+ device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
matrix_reg_err:
put_device(&matrix_dev->device);
matrix_alloc_err:
+ bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
+bus_register_err:
root_device_unregister(root_device);
-
return ret;
}
static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_destroy(void)
{
+ struct device *root_device = matrix_dev->device.parent;
+
+ driver_unregister(&matrix_driver);
device_unregister(&matrix_dev->device);
- root_device_unregister(matrix_dev->device.parent);
+ bus_unregister(&matrix_bus);
+ root_device_unregister(root_device);
}
static int __init vfio_ap_init(void)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
index 272ef42..900b9cf 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
@@ -198,8 +198,8 @@ static int vfio_ap_verify_queue_reserved(unsigned long *apid,
qres.apqi = apqi;
qres.reserved = false;
- ret = driver_for_each_device(matrix_dev->device.driver, NULL, &qres,
- vfio_ap_has_queue);
+ ret = driver_for_each_device(&matrix_dev->vfio_ap_drv->driver, NULL,
+ &qres, vfio_ap_has_queue);
if (ret)
return ret;
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
index 5675492..76b7f98 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct ap_matrix_dev {
struct ap_config_info info;
struct list_head mdev_list;
struct mutex lock;
+ struct ap_driver *vfio_ap_drv;
};
extern struct ap_matrix_dev *matrix_dev;
You are introducing a new bus just for a user space application which is unable
to deal with a device directly attached to the root of devices ? So you are fixing
kernel code because of disability of userspace code. Hm, you are switching
root cause and effect. However, not my job.
the kernel rule is pretty simple. If userspace breaks due to a kernel change fix the
kernel.
Why do you need this dummy bus ? Did you evaluate using a "class" subsystem
instead ? This is very common and my assumption is that libudev is able to handle
this. I am using a "zcrypt" class for providing additional zcrypt device nodes and
this works fine together with udev. I would avoid the introduction and maintenance
of bus code at any cost.
The class variant sounds promising. Pierre what do you think?
AFAIU the device driver model, the struct class is higher level
representation of the device used to provide the informations to create
devices in /dev.
The device and the class are associated with the call to device_create
which send the event.
However the device passed to device_create must hang on a bus and be
managed by a driver.
I do not see the interest of having a class if we do not plan to create
a device in /dev.
We could add one in prevision, but it is not a replacement for the bus.
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in BÃblingen - Germany