Re: [PATCH v11 05/14] s390/vfio-ap: implement in-use callback for vfio_ap driver

[Halil Pasic]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:12:00 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Let's implement the callback to indicate when an APQN
> is in use by the vfio_ap device driver. The callback is
> invoked whenever a change to the apmask or aqmask would
> result in one or more queue devices being removed from the driver. The
> vfio_ap device driver will indicate a resource is in use
> if the APQN of any of the queue devices to be removed are assigned to
> any of the matrix mdevs under the driver's control.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c     |  1 +
>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     | 78 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |  2 +
>  3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> index 73bd073fd5d3..8934471b7944 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ static int __init vfio_ap_init(void)
>  	memset(&vfio_ap_drv, 0, sizeof(vfio_ap_drv));
>  	vfio_ap_drv.probe = vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue;
>  	vfio_ap_drv.remove = vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue;
> +	vfio_ap_drv.in_use = vfio_ap_mdev_resource_in_use;
>  	vfio_ap_drv.ids = ap_queue_ids;
>  
>  	ret = ap_driver_register(&vfio_ap_drv, THIS_MODULE, VFIO_AP_DRV_NAME);
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> index 1357f8f8b7e4..9e9fad560859 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> @@ -522,18 +522,40 @@ vfio_ap_mdev_verify_queues_reserved_for_apid(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +#define MDEV_SHARING_ERR "Userspace may not re-assign queue %02lx.%04lx " \
> +			 "already assigned to %s"
> +
> +static void vfio_ap_mdev_log_sharing_err(const char *mdev_name,
> +					 unsigned long *apm,
> +					 unsigned long *aqm)
> +{
> +	unsigned long apid, apqi;
> +
> +	for_each_set_bit_inv(apid, apm, AP_DEVICES)
> +		for_each_set_bit_inv(apqi, aqm, AP_DOMAINS)
> +			pr_err(MDEV_SHARING_ERR, apid, apqi, mdev_name);

Isn't error rather severe for this? For my taste even warning would be
severe for this.

> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing
>   *
> - * Verifies that the APQNs derived from the cross product of the AP adapter IDs
> - * and AP queue indexes comprising the AP matrix are not configured for another
> + * Verifies that each APQN derived from the cross product of the AP adapter IDs
> + * and AP queue indexes comprising an AP matrix is not assigned to a
>   * mediated device. AP queue sharing is not allowed.
>   *
> - * @matrix_mdev: the mediated matrix device
> + * @matrix_mdev: the mediated matrix device to which the APQNs being verified
> + *		 are assigned. If the value is not NULL, then verification will
> + *		 proceed for all other matrix mediated devices; otherwise, all
> + *		 matrix mediated devices will be verified.
> + * @mdev_apm: mask indicating the APIDs of the APQNs to be verified
> + * @mdev_aqm: mask indicating the APQIs of the APQNs to be verified
>   *
> - * Returns 0 if the APQNs are not shared, otherwise; returns -EADDRINUSE.
> + * Returns 0 if no APQNs are not shared, otherwise; returns -EADDRINUSE if one
> + * or more APQNs are shared.
>   */
> -static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev,
> +					  unsigned long *mdev_apm,
> +					  unsigned long *mdev_aqm)
>  {
>  	struct ap_matrix_mdev *lstdev;
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(apm, AP_DEVICES);
> @@ -550,14 +572,15 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
>  		 * We work on full longs, as we can only exclude the leftover
>  		 * bits in non-inverse order. The leftover is all zeros.
>  		 */
> -		if (!bitmap_and(apm, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm,
> -				lstdev->matrix.apm, AP_DEVICES))
> +		if (!bitmap_and(apm, mdev_apm, lstdev->matrix.apm, AP_DEVICES))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		if (!bitmap_and(aqm, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
> -				lstdev->matrix.aqm, AP_DOMAINS))
> +		if (!bitmap_and(aqm, mdev_aqm, lstdev->matrix.aqm, AP_DOMAINS))
>  			continue;
>  
> +		vfio_ap_mdev_log_sharing_err(dev_name(mdev_dev(lstdev->mdev)),
> +					     apm, aqm);
> +
>  		return -EADDRINUSE;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -683,6 +706,7 @@ static ssize_t assign_adapter_store(struct device *dev,
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	unsigned long apid;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(apm, AP_DEVICES);
>  	struct mdev_device *mdev = mdev_from_dev(dev);
>  	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
>  
> @@ -708,18 +732,18 @@ static ssize_t assign_adapter_store(struct device *dev,
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto done;
>  
> -	set_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm);
> +	memset(apm, 0, sizeof(apm));
> +	set_bit_inv(apid, apm);
>  
> -	ret = vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(matrix_mdev);
> +	ret = vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(matrix_mdev, apm,
> +					     matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm);

What is the benefit of using a copy here? I mean we have the vfio_ap lock
so nobody can see the bit we speculatively flipped.

I've also pointed out in the previous patch that in_use() isn't
perfectly reliable (at least in theory) because of a race.

Otherwise looks good to me!

>  	if (ret)
> -		goto share_err;
> +		goto done;
>  
> +	set_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm);
>  	vfio_ap_mdev_link_queues(matrix_mdev, LINK_APID, apid);
>  	ret = count;
> -	goto done;
>  
> -share_err:
> -	clear_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm);
>  done:
>  	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>  
> @@ -831,6 +855,7 @@ static ssize_t assign_domain_store(struct device *dev,
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  	unsigned long apqi;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(aqm, AP_DOMAINS);
>  	struct mdev_device *mdev = mdev_from_dev(dev);
>  	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
>  	unsigned long max_apqi = matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm_max;
> @@ -851,18 +876,18 @@ static ssize_t assign_domain_store(struct device *dev,
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto done;
>  
> -	set_bit_inv(apqi, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm);
> +	memset(aqm, 0, sizeof(aqm));
> +	set_bit_inv(apqi, aqm);
>  
> -	ret = vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(matrix_mdev);
> +	ret = vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(matrix_mdev,
> +					     matrix_mdev->matrix.apm, aqm);
>  	if (ret)
> -		goto share_err;
> +		goto done;
>  
> +	set_bit_inv(apqi, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm);
>  	vfio_ap_mdev_link_queues(matrix_mdev, LINK_APQI, apqi);
>  	ret = count;
> -	goto done;
>  
> -share_err:
> -	clear_bit_inv(apqi, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm);
>  done:
>  	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>  
> @@ -1442,3 +1467,14 @@ void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
>  	kfree(q);
>  	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>  }
> +
> +bool vfio_ap_mdev_resource_in_use(unsigned long *apm, unsigned long *aqm)
> +{
> +	bool in_use;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> +	in_use = !!vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(NULL, apm, aqm);
> +	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> +
> +	return in_use;
> +}
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
> index 4e5cc72fc0db..c1d8b5507610 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
> @@ -105,4 +105,6 @@ struct vfio_ap_queue {
>  int vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(struct ap_device *queue);
>  void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *queue);
>  
> +bool vfio_ap_mdev_resource_in_use(unsigned long *apm, unsigned long *aqm);
> +
>  #endif /* _VFIO_AP_PRIVATE_H_ */