* [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-09-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Alex Williamson, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
This was missed for gvt, add it.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Should go through Alex's tree.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
}
base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
--
2.37.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-09-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Alex Williamson, Zhi Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable
When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
This was missed for gvt, add it.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Should go through Alex's tree.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
}
base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
--
2.37.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-09-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, stable
When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
This was missed for gvt, add it.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Should go through Alex's tree.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
}
base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
--
2.37.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
(?)
(?)
@ 2022-09-29 20:04 ` Patchwork
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2022-09-29 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/109264/
State : failure
== Summary ==
Error: patch https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/109264/revisions/1/mbox/ not applied
Applying: drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
(?)
@ 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-09-30 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Alex Williamson, Wang, Zhi A, Christoph Hellwig, stable
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 1:49 AM
>
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use
> vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-09-30 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: stable, Alex Williamson, Christoph Hellwig, Wang, Zhi A
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 1:49 AM
>
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use
> vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-09-30 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: stable, Christoph Hellwig
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 1:49 AM
>
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use
> vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
@ 2022-09-30 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2022-09-30 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Alex Williamson, Christoph Hellwig, stable,
Zhi Wang
Oops. Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-30 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2022-09-30 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
Oops. Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
(?)
@ 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-09-30 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
Applied to vfio next branch for v6.1. Thanks for the quick fix!
Alex
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-09-30 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
Applied to vfio next branch for v6.1. Thanks for the quick fix!
Alex
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-09-30 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
Applied to vfio next branch for v6.1. Thanks for the quick fix!
Alex
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
(?)
@ 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
existing kernels is actually:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
+ vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
existing kernels is actually:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
+ vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
>
> This was missed for gvt, add it.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> Should go through Alex's tree.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
>
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> }
>
>
> base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
existing kernels is actually:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
@@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
return;
+
+ vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
+ vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call (rev2)
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
(?)
@ 2022-10-05 21:16 ` Patchwork
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2022-10-05 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call (rev2)
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/109264/
State : warning
== Summary ==
Error: dim checkpatch failed
d1cb20a63051 drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
-:16: WARNING:COMMIT_LOG_LONG_LINE: Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
#16:
> Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
-:56: ERROR:MISSING_SIGN_OFF: Missing Signed-off-by: line(s)
total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 9 lines checked
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call (rev2)
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
(?)
@ 2022-10-05 21:38 ` Patchwork
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2022-10-05 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: intel-gfx
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11015 bytes --]
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call (rev2)
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/109264/
State : failure
== Summary ==
CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_12219 -> Patchwork_109264v2
====================================================
Summary
-------
**FAILURE**
Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_109264v2 absolutely need to be
verified manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_109264v2, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
External URL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/index.html
Participating hosts (42 -> 42)
------------------------------
Additional (2): fi-hsw-4770 fi-rkl-11600
Missing (2): fi-ctg-p8600 fi-hsw-4200u
Possible new issues
-------------------
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_109264v2:
### IGT changes ###
#### Possible regressions ####
* igt@gem_render_tiled_blits@basic:
- fi-apl-guc: [PASS][1] -> [INCOMPLETE][2]
[1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/fi-apl-guc/igt@gem_render_tiled_blits@basic.html
[2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-apl-guc/igt@gem_render_tiled_blits@basic.html
Known issues
------------
Here are the changes found in Patchwork_109264v2 that come from known issues:
### IGT changes ###
#### Issues hit ####
* igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][3] ([i915#2190])
[3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_huc_copy@huc-copy.html
* igt@gem_lmem_swapping@basic:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][4] ([i915#4613]) +3 similar issues
[4]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_lmem_swapping@basic.html
* igt@gem_softpin@allocator-basic-reserve:
- fi-hsw-4770: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][5] ([fdo#109271]) +9 similar issues
[5]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-hsw-4770/igt@gem_softpin@allocator-basic-reserve.html
* igt@gem_tiled_pread_basic:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][6] ([i915#3282])
[6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@gem_tiled_pread_basic.html
* igt@i915_pm_backlight@basic-brightness:
- fi-hsw-4770: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][7] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#3012])
[7]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-hsw-4770/igt@i915_pm_backlight@basic-brightness.html
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][8] ([i915#3012])
[8]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@i915_pm_backlight@basic-brightness.html
* igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload:
- fi-cfl-8109u: [PASS][9] -> [DMESG-FAIL][10] ([i915#62])
[9]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload.html
[10]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_pm_rpm@module-reload.html
* igt@i915_selftest@live@late_gt_pm:
- fi-cfl-8109u: [PASS][11] -> [DMESG-WARN][12] ([i915#5904]) +30 similar issues
[11]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_selftest@live@late_gt_pm.html
[12]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_selftest@live@late_gt_pm.html
* igt@i915_suspend@basic-s2idle-without-i915:
- fi-cfl-8109u: [PASS][13] -> [DMESG-WARN][14] ([i915#5904] / [i915#62])
[13]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_suspend@basic-s2idle-without-i915.html
[14]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@i915_suspend@basic-s2idle-without-i915.html
* igt@i915_suspend@basic-s3-without-i915:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [INCOMPLETE][15] ([i915#5982])
[15]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@i915_suspend@basic-s3-without-i915.html
* igt@kms_chamelium@dp-crc-fast:
- fi-hsw-4770: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][16] ([fdo#109271] / [fdo#111827]) +8 similar issues
[16]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-hsw-4770/igt@kms_chamelium@dp-crc-fast.html
* igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-edid-read:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][17] ([fdo#111827]) +7 similar issues
[17]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@kms_chamelium@hdmi-edid-read.html
* igt@kms_cursor_legacy@basic-busy-flip-before-cursor:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][18] ([i915#4103])
[18]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@kms_cursor_legacy@basic-busy-flip-before-cursor.html
* igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-load-detect:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][19] ([fdo#109285] / [i915#4098])
[19]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-load-detect.html
* igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@basic:
- fi-cfl-8109u: [PASS][20] -> [DMESG-WARN][21] ([i915#62]) +12 similar issues
[20]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@basic.html
[21]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-cfl-8109u/igt@kms_frontbuffer_tracking@basic.html
* igt@kms_psr@primary_page_flip:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][22] ([i915#1072]) +3 similar issues
[22]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@kms_psr@primary_page_flip.html
* igt@kms_psr@sprite_plane_onoff:
- fi-hsw-4770: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][23] ([fdo#109271] / [i915#1072]) +3 similar issues
[23]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-hsw-4770/igt@kms_psr@sprite_plane_onoff.html
* igt@kms_setmode@basic-clone-single-crtc:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][24] ([i915#3555] / [i915#4098])
[24]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@kms_setmode@basic-clone-single-crtc.html
* igt@prime_vgem@basic-read:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][25] ([fdo#109295] / [i915#3291] / [i915#3708]) +2 similar issues
[25]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@prime_vgem@basic-read.html
* igt@prime_vgem@basic-userptr:
- fi-rkl-11600: NOTRUN -> [SKIP][26] ([fdo#109295] / [i915#3301] / [i915#3708])
[26]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/fi-rkl-11600/igt@prime_vgem@basic-userptr.html
#### Possible fixes ####
* igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem:
- {bat-rplp-1}: [DMESG-WARN][27] ([i915#2867]) -> [PASS][28]
[27]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/bat-rplp-1/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem.html
[28]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/bat-rplp-1/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem.html
- {bat-adlm-1}: [DMESG-WARN][29] ([i915#2867]) -> [PASS][30]
[29]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/bat-adlm-1/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem.html
[30]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/bat-adlm-1/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s0@smem.html
* igt@i915_module_load@reload:
- {bat-rpls-2}: [DMESG-WARN][31] ([i915#5537]) -> [PASS][32] +1 similar issue
[31]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/bat-rpls-2/igt@i915_module_load@reload.html
[32]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/bat-rpls-2/igt@i915_module_load@reload.html
* igt@i915_selftest@live@requests:
- {bat-rpls-1}: [INCOMPLETE][33] ([i915#6257]) -> [PASS][34]
[33]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/bat-rpls-1/igt@i915_selftest@live@requests.html
[34]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/bat-rpls-1/igt@i915_selftest@live@requests.html
* igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
- {bat-rpls-2}: [DMESG-FAIL][35] ([i915#4983]) -> [PASS][36]
[35]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_12219/bat-rpls-2/igt@i915_selftest@live@reset.html
[36]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/bat-rpls-2/igt@i915_selftest@live@reset.html
{name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing
the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE).
[fdo#109271]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109271
[fdo#109285]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109285
[fdo#109295]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109295
[fdo#111827]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111827
[i915#1072]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/1072
[i915#2190]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2190
[i915#2582]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2582
[i915#2867]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/2867
[i915#3012]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3012
[i915#3282]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3282
[i915#3291]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3291
[i915#3301]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3301
[i915#3555]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3555
[i915#3708]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/3708
[i915#4098]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/4098
[i915#4103]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/4103
[i915#4613]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/4613
[i915#4983]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/4983
[i915#5537]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/5537
[i915#5904]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/5904
[i915#5982]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/5982
[i915#62]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/62
[i915#6257]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/6257
[i915#6367]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/6367
[i915#6559]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/6559
[i915#6818]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/6818
Build changes
-------------
* Linux: CI_DRM_12219 -> Patchwork_109264v2
CI-20190529: 20190529
CI_DRM_12219: a6282eed0f613f3230a53a1826ac913edc0a65e4 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
IGT_6683: 5de4065922af981366357df5a94caf4e8d15c52a @ https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools.git
Patchwork_109264v2: a6282eed0f613f3230a53a1826ac913edc0a65e4 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
### Linux commits
c959da3572d3 drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_109264v2/index.html
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12867 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-05 20:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
(?)
@ 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:17:17 -0600
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
> >
> > This was missed for gvt, add it.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > Should go through Alex's tree.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
Actually, what's the purpose of this ^^^^ ?
We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Alex
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
> +
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> + vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:17:17 -0600
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
> >
> > This was missed for gvt, add it.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > Should go through Alex's tree.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
Actually, what's the purpose of this ^^^^ ?
We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Alex
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
> +
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> + vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-05 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Gunthorpe
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 14:17:17 -0600
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:48:35 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > When converting to directly create the vfio_device the mdev driver has to
> > put a vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() in the probe() and a pairing
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() in the remove.
> >
> > This was missed for gvt, add it.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 978cf586ac35 ("drm/i915/gvt: convert to use vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev")
> > Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > Should go through Alex's tree.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
Actually, what's the purpose of this ^^^^ ?
We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Alex
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> index e3cd58946477..de89946c4817 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> return;
> +
> + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> + vfio_uninit_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> intel_gvt_destroy_vgpu(vgpu);
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-05 20:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
(?)
@ 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:17:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
Yes probably, this patch won't apply so if anyone wants to see it in
the stable series they need to follow the process to send the reworked
version.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:17:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
Yes probably, this patch won't apply so if anyone wants to see it in
the stable series they need to follow the process to send the reworked
version.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 02:17:17PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > index 41bba40feef8f4..9003145adb5a93 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/kvmgt.c
> > @@ -1615,6 +1615,7 @@ static void intel_vgpu_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vgpu->attached))
> > return;
> >
> > + vfio_unregister_group_dev(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > vfio_put_device(&vgpu->vfio_device);
> > }
> >
> >
> > base-commit: c72e0034e6d4c36322d958b997d11d2627c6056c
>
> This is marked for stable, but I think the stable backport for
> existing kernels is actually:
Yes probably, this patch won't apply so if anyone wants to see it in
the stable series they need to follow the process to send the reworked
version.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
(?)
@ 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel, intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev,
Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin,
Zhenyu Wang, Christoph Hellwig, stable, Zhi Wang
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Yes, looks right to me.
I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig, Zhi Wang
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Yes, looks right to me.
I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2022-10-06 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson
Cc: David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel, Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi,
stable, intel-gvt-dev, Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
Yes, looks right to me.
I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
(?)
@ 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhenyu Wang, Zhi Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen,
Rodrigo Vivi, Tvrtko Ursulin, Christoph Hellwig, stable
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>
> Yes, looks right to me.
>
> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
Thanks,
Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhenyu Wang, Zhi Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
dri-devel, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>
> Yes, looks right to me.
>
> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
Thanks,
Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Alex Williamson @ 2022-10-06 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhenyu Wang, Zhi Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel,
Daniel Vetter, Rodrigo Vivi, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>
> Yes, looks right to me.
>
> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
Thanks,
Alex
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
(?)
@ 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-10 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Wang, Zhi A
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:31 AM
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >
> > Yes, looks right to me.
> >
> > I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
Zhi is looking at it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-10 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Wang, Zhi A
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel,
Daniel Vetter, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:31 AM
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >
> > Yes, looks right to me.
> >
> > I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
Zhi is looking at it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-10 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Wang, Zhi A
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Christoph Hellwig, stable
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:31 AM
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> > > removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> > > vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> > > unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> > > missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> > > remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >
> > Yes, looks right to me.
> >
> > I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
Zhi is looking at it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
(?)
@ 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Wang, Zhi A @ 2022-10-19 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
>>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
>>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
>>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
>>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
>>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>>
>> Yes, looks right to me.
>>
>> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
Thanks for pointing this out.
It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
handled by the vfio_device_*.
What I would like to do are:
1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
Thanks,
Zhi.
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Wang, Zhi A @ 2022-10-19 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel,
Daniel Vetter, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
>>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
>>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
>>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
>>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
>>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>>
>> Yes, looks right to me.
>>
>> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
Thanks for pointing this out.
It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
handled by the vfio_device_*.
What I would like to do are:
1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
Thanks,
Zhi.
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Wang, Zhi A @ 2022-10-19 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang, Tian, Kevin
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Christoph Hellwig, stable
On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
>>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
>>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
>>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
>>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
>>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
>>
>> Yes, looks right to me.
>>
>> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
>
> Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
>
> Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
>
Thanks for pointing this out.
It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
handled by the vfio_device_*.
What I would like to do are:
1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
Thanks,
Zhi.
> Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
2022-10-19 9:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Wang, Zhi A
(?)
@ 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-19 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang, Zhi A, Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin, Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
dri-devel, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
> From: Wang, Zhi A <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 5:41 PM
>
> On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> >>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> >>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> >>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> >>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> >>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >>
> >> Yes, looks right to me.
> >>
> >> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
> >
> > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
> >
> > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
> >
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
> not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
>
> I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
> on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vfio core already ensures that .open_device() is called only once:
vfio_device_open()
{
...
mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock);
device->open_count++;
if (device->open_count == 1) {
...
if (device->ops->open_device) {
ret = device->ops->open_device(device);
...
}
> vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
> handled by the vfio_device_*.
>
> What I would like to do are:
> 1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
>
> After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
> should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
> deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhi.
>
> > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-19 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang, Zhi A, Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, intel-gfx, dri-devel,
Daniel Vetter, Vivi, Rodrigo, stable, intel-gvt-dev,
Christoph Hellwig
> From: Wang, Zhi A <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 5:41 PM
>
> On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> >>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> >>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> >>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> >>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> >>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >>
> >> Yes, looks right to me.
> >>
> >> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
> >
> > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
> >
> > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
> >
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
> not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
>
> I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
> on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vfio core already ensures that .open_device() is called only once:
vfio_device_open()
{
...
mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock);
device->open_count++;
if (device->open_count == 1) {
...
if (device->ops->open_device) {
ret = device->ops->open_device(device);
...
}
> vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
> handled by the vfio_device_*.
>
> What I would like to do are:
> 1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
>
> After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
> should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
> deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhi.
>
> > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call
@ 2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2022-10-19 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang, Zhi A, Alex Williamson, Zhenyu Wang
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe, David Airlie, Daniel Vetter, dri-devel,
intel-gfx, intel-gvt-dev, Jani Nikula, Joonas Lahtinen, Vivi,
Rodrigo, Tvrtko Ursulin, Christoph Hellwig, stable
> From: Wang, Zhi A <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 5:41 PM
>
> On 10/6/22 18:31, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:37:09 -0300
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 04:03:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> We can't have a .remove callback that does nothing, this breaks
> >>> removing the device while it's in use. Once we have the
> >>> vfio_unregister_group_dev() fix below, we'll block until the device is
> >>> unused, at which point vgpu->attached becomes false. Unless I'm
> >>> missing something, I think we should also follow-up with a patch to
> >>> remove that bogus warn-on branch, right? Thanks,
> >>
> >> Yes, looks right to me.
> >>
> >> I question all the logical arround attached, where is the locking?
> >
> > Zhenyu, Zhi, Kevin,
> >
> > Could someone please take a look at use of vgpu->attached in the GVT-g
> > driver? It's use in intel_vgpu_remove() is bogus, the .release
> > callback needs to use vfio_unregister_group_dev() to wait for the
> > device to be unused. The WARN_ON/return here breaks all future use of
> > the device. I assume @attached has something to do with the page table
> > interface with KVM, but it all looks racy anyway.
> >
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> It was introduced in the GVT-g refactor patch series and Christoph might
> not want to touch the vgpu->released while he needed a new state.
>
> I dig it a bit. vgpu->attached would be used for preventing multiple open
> on a single vGPU and indicate the kvm_get_kvm() has been done.
vfio core already ensures that .open_device() is called only once:
vfio_device_open()
{
...
mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock);
device->open_count++;
if (device->open_count == 1) {
...
if (device->ops->open_device) {
ret = device->ops->open_device(device);
...
}
> vgpu->released was to prevent the release before close, which is now
> handled by the vfio_device_*.
>
> What I would like to do are:
> 1) Remove the vgpu->released. 2) Use alock to protect vgpu->attached.
>
> After those were solved, the WARN_ON/return in the intel_vgpu_remove()
> should be safely removed as the .release will be called after .close_device
> deceases the vfio_device->refcnt to zero.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhi.
>
> > Also, whatever purpose vgpu->released served looks unnecessary now.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-19 10:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-09-29 17:48 [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call Jason Gunthorpe
2022-09-29 17:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason Gunthorpe
2022-09-29 17:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-09-29 20:04 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for " Patchwork
2022-09-30 1:47 ` [PATCH] " Tian, Kevin
2022-09-30 1:47 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tian, Kevin
2022-09-30 1:47 ` Tian, Kevin
2022-09-30 6:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-09-30 6:46 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson
2022-09-30 21:31 ` Alex Williamson
2022-09-30 21:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 20:17 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 20:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 22:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
2022-10-05 22:03 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-06 11:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-06 11:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-06 18:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Williamson
2022-10-06 18:31 ` Alex Williamson
2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin
2022-10-10 23:14 ` Tian, Kevin
2022-10-10 23:14 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tian, Kevin
2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A
2022-10-19 9:40 ` Wang, Zhi A
2022-10-19 9:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Wang, Zhi A
2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin
2022-10-19 10:13 ` Tian, Kevin
2022-10-19 10:13 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tian, Kevin
2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-06 11:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-06 11:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2022-10-05 21:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call (rev2) Patchwork
2022-10-05 21:38 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.