Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the hw_pagetable usage by device

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:46:23AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > So the issue is with replace you need to have the domain populated
> > before we can call replace but you can't populate the domain until it
> > is bound because of the above issue? That seems unsovlable without
> > fixing up the driver.
> 
> Not really. A REPLACE ioctl is just an ATTACH, if the device just
> gets BIND-ed. So the SMMU driver will initialize ("finalise") the
> domain during the replace() call, then iopt_table_add_domain() can
> be done.
> 
> So, not a blocker here.

Well, yes, there sort of is because the whole flow becomes nonsensical
- we are supposed to have the iommu_domain populated by the time we do
replace. Otherwise replace is extra-pointless..

> > Is there another issue?
> 
> Oh. I think we mixed the topics here. These three patches were
> not to unblock but to clean up a way for the replace series and
> the nesting series, for the device locking issue:
> 
> 	if (cur_hwpt != hwpt)
> 		mutex_lock(&cur_hwpt->device_lock);
> 	mutex_lock(&hwpt->device_lock);
> 	...
> 	if (iommufd_hw_pagetabe_has_group()) {	// touching device list
> 		...
> 		iommu_group_replace_domain();
> 		...
> 	}
> 	if (cur_hwpt && hwpt)
> 		list_del(&idev->devices_item);
> 	list_add(&idev->devices_item, &cur_hwpt->devices);
> 	...
> 	mutex_unlock(&hwpt->device_lock);
> 	if (cur_hwpt != hwpt)
> 		mutex_unlock(&cur_hwpt->device_lock);

What is the issue? That isn't quite right, but the basic bit is fine

If you want to do replace then you have to hold both devices_lock and
you write that super ugly thing like this

lock_both:
   if (hwpt_a < hwpt_b) {
      mutex_lock(&hwpt_a->devices_lock);
      mutex_lock_nested(&hwpt_b->devices_lock);
   } else if (hwpt_a > hwpt_b) {
      mutex_lock(&hwpt_b->devices_lock);
      mutex_lock_nested(&hwpt_a->devices_lock);
   } else
      mutex_lock(&hwpt_a->devices_lock);

And then it is trivial, yes?

Using the group_lock in the iommu core is the right way to fix
this.. Maybe someday we can do that.

(also document that replace causes all the devices in the group to
change iommu_domains at once)

> I just gave another thought about it. Since we have the patch-2
> from this series moving the ioas->mutex, it already serializes
> attach/detach routines. And I see that all the places touching
> idev->device_item and hwpt->devices are protected by ioas->mutex.
> So, perhaps we can simply remove the device_lock?

The two hwpts are not required to have the same ioas, so this doesn't
really help..

Jason