Re: [PATCHv2 08/10] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove sequence

[Halil Pasic]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 18:26:59 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 09/05/2019 11:06, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > [vfio-ap folks: find a question regarding removal further down]
> > 
> > On Wed, 8 May 2019 22:06:48 +0000
> > Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:10 PM
> >>> To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>> kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx; alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; cjia@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 08/10] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove
> >>> sequence
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:49:35 -0500
> >>> Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>    
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> >>>> @@ -373,16 +330,15 @@ int mdev_device_remove(struct device *dev,
> >>> bool force_remove)
> >>>>   	mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
> >>>>
> >>>>   	type = to_mdev_type(mdev->type_kobj);
> >>>> +	mdev_remove_sysfs_files(dev, type);
> >>>> +	device_del(&mdev->dev);
> >>>>   	parent = mdev->parent;
> >>>> +	ret = parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> >>>> +	if (ret)
> >>>> +		dev_err(&mdev->dev, "Remove failed: err=%d\n", ret);
> >>>
> >>> I think carrying on with removal regardless of the return code of the
> >>> ->remove callback makes sense, as it simply matches usual practice.
> >>> However, are we sure that every vendor driver works well with that? I think
> >>> it should, as removal from bus unregistration (vs. from the sysfs
> >>> file) was always something it could not veto, but have you looked at the
> >>> individual drivers?
> >>>    
> >> I looked at following drivers a little while back.
> >> Looked again now.
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c which clears the handle valid in intel_vgpu_release(), which should finish first before remove() is invoked.
> >>
> >> s390 vfio_ccw_mdev_remove() driver drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c remove() always returns 0.
> >> s39 crypo fails the remove() once vfio_ap_mdev_release marks kvm null, which should finish before remove() is invoked.
> > 
> > That one is giving me a bit of a headache (the ->kvm reference is
> > supposed to keep us from detaching while a vm is running), so let's cc:
> > the vfio-ap maintainers to see whether they have any concerns.
> > 
> 
> We are aware of this race and we did correct this in the IRQ patches for 
> which it would have become a real issue.
> We now increment/decrement the KVM reference counter inside open and 
> release.
> Should be right after this.
> 

Tony, what is your take on this? I don't have the bandwidth to think
this through properly, but my intuition tells me: this might be more
complicated than what Pierre's response suggests.

Regards,
Halil