On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:21:26 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, it makes sense. I guess I didn't look closely at yourThe problem with this one is that as soon as we drop
suggestion when I said it was exactly what I implemented
after agreeing with Connie. I had a slight difference in
my implementation:
static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
{
struct kvm *kvm;
mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
kvm = matrix_mdev->kvm;
mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
the lock here, another thread can in theory execute
the critical section below, which drops our reference
to kvm via kvm_put_kvm(kvm). Thus when we enter
kvm_arch_crypto_clear_mask(), even if we are guaranteed
to have a non-null pointer, the pointee is not guaranteed
to be around. So like Connie suggested, you better take
another reference to kvm in the first critical section.
Regards,
Halil
kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(kvm);
mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
}
mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
}