Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] hisi_acc_vfio_pci: Add support for VFIO live migration
From: Jason Gunthorpe
Date: Mon Sep 27 2021 - 12:06:33 EST
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 07:00:23PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:01:19PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 01:46:31PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > > > > > Nope, this is locked wrong and has no lifetime management.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok. Holding the device_lock() sufficient here?
> > > >
> > > > You can't hold a hisi_qm pointer with some kind of lifecycle
> > > > management of that pointer. device_lock/etc is necessary to call
> > > > pci_get_drvdata()
> > >
> > > Since this migration driver only supports VF devices and the PF
> > > driver will not be removed until all the VF devices gets removed,
> > > is the locking necessary here?
> > Oh.. That is really busted up. pci_sriov_disable() is called under the
> > device_lock(pf) and obtains the device_lock(vf).
> Yes, indirectly, but yes.
> > This means a VF driver can never use the device_lock(pf), otherwise it
> > can deadlock itself if PF removal triggers VF removal.
> VF can use pci_dev_trylock() on PF to prevent PF removal.
no, no here, the device_lock is used in too many places for a trylock
to be appropriate
> > But you can't access these members without using the device_lock(), as
> > there really are no safety guarentees..
> > The mlx5 patches have this same sketchy problem.
> > We may need a new special function 'pci_get_sriov_pf_devdata()' that
> > confirms the vf/pf relationship and explicitly interlocks with the
> > pci_sriov_enable/disable instead of using device_lock()
> > Leon, what do you think?
> I see pci_dev_lock() and similar functions, they are easier to
> understand that specific pci_get_sriov_pf_devdata().
That is just a wrapper for device_lock - it doesnt help anything
The point is to all out a different locking regime that relies on the
sriov enable/disable removing the VF struct devices