[PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Jason Gunthorpe]

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

RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Tian, Kevin]

> 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>

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Alex Williamson]

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

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Alex Williamson]

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);
 }

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Alex Williamson]

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);
>  }

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Jason Gunthorpe]

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

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Jason Gunthorpe]

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

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Alex Williamson]

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

RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Tian, Kevin]

> 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.

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Wang, Zhi A]

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
> 

RE: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Add missing vfio_unregister_group_dev() call

[Tian, Kevin]

> 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
> >