[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 09/13] vfio/pci: Reorganize VFIO_DEVICE_PCI_HOT_RESET to use the device set

[Alex Williamson]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 21:20:38 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com> wrote:
> +/*
> + * We need to get memory_lock for each device, but devices can share mmap_lock,
> + * therefore we need to zap and hold the vma_lock for each device, and only then
> + * get each memory_lock.
> + */
> +static int vfio_hot_reset_device_set(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
> +				     struct vfio_pci_group_info *groups)
> +{
> +	struct vfio_device_set *dev_set = vdev->vdev.dev_set;
> +	struct vfio_pci_device *cur_mem =
> +		list_first_entry(&dev_set->device_list, struct vfio_pci_device,
> +				 vdev.dev_set_list);

We shouldn't be looking at the list outside of the lock, if the first
entry got removed we'd break our unwind code.

> +	struct vfio_pci_device *cur_vma;
> +	struct vfio_pci_device *cur;
> +	bool is_mem = true;
> +	int ret;
>  
> -	if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != &vfio_pci_driver) {
> -		vfio_device_put(device);
> -		return -EBUSY;
> +	mutex_lock(&dev_set->lock);
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> +
> +	/* All devices in the group to be reset need VFIO devices */
> +	if (vfio_pci_for_each_slot_or_bus(
> +		    vdev->pdev, vfio_pci_check_all_devices_bound, dev_set,
> +		    !pci_probe_reset_slot(vdev->pdev->slot))) {
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		goto err_unlock;
>  	}
>  
> -	vdev = container_of(device, struct vfio_pci_device, vdev);
> +	list_for_each_entry(cur_vma, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Test whether all the affected devices are contained by the
> +		 * set of groups provided by the user.
> +		 */
> +		if (!vfio_dev_in_groups(cur_vma, groups)) {
> +			ret = -EINVAL;
> +			goto err_undo;
> +		}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Locking multiple devices is prone to deadlock, runaway and
> -	 * unwind if we hit contention.
> -	 */
> -	if (!vfio_pci_zap_and_vma_lock(vdev, true)) {
> -		vfio_device_put(device);
> -		return -EBUSY;
> +		/*
> +		 * Locking multiple devices is prone to deadlock, runaway and
> +		 * unwind if we hit contention.
> +		 */
> +		if (!vfio_pci_zap_and_vma_lock(cur_vma, true)) {
> +			ret = -EBUSY;
> +			goto err_undo;
> +		}
>  	}
>  
> -	devs->devices[devs->cur_index++] = vdev;
> -	return 0;
> +	list_for_each_entry(cur_mem, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> +		if (!down_write_trylock(&cur_mem->memory_lock)) {
> +			ret = -EBUSY;
> +			goto err_undo;
> +		}
> +		mutex_unlock(&cur_mem->vma_lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = pci_reset_bus(vdev->pdev);
> +


> +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list)
> +		up_write(&cur->memory_lock);
> +	mutex_unlock(&dev_set->lock);
> +
> +	return ret;


Isn't the above section actually redundant to below, ie. we could just
fall through after the pci_reset_bus()?  Thanks,

Alex

> +
> +err_undo:
> +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &dev_set->device_list, vdev.dev_set_list) {
> +		if (cur == cur_mem)
> +			is_mem = false;
> +		if (cur == cur_vma)
> +			break;
> +		if (is_mem)
> +			up_write(&cur->memory_lock);
> +		else
> +			mutex_unlock(&cur->vma_lock);
> +	}
> +err_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&dev_set->lock);
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  /*