Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:14:14 -0700
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To:     Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, "Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@intel.com>,
        <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>, <jiangkunkun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vfio/iommu_type1: Sanity check pfn_list when
 remove vfio_dma
Message-ID: <20210121111414.143e3e4e@omen.home.shazbot.org>
In-Reply-To: <32f8b347-587a-1a9a-bee8-569f09a03a15@huawei.com>
References: <20210115092643.728-1-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
        <20210115092643.728-3-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
        <20210115121447.54c96857@omen.home.shazbot.org>
        <32f8b347-587a-1a9a-bee8-569f09a03a15@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:16:08 +0800
Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:

> On 2021/1/16 3:14, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:26:43 +0800
> > Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> vfio_sanity_check_pfn_list() is used to check whether pfn_list of
> >> vfio_dma is empty when remove the external domain, so it makes a
> >> wrong assumption that only external domain will add pfn to dma pfn_list.
> >>
> >> Now we apply this check when remove a specific vfio_dma and extract
> >> the notifier check just for external domain.  
> > 
> > The page pinning interface is gated by having a notifier registered for
> > unmaps, therefore non-external domains would also need to register a
> > notifier.  There's currently no other way to add entries to the
> > pfn_list.  So if we allow pinning for such domains, then it's wrong to
> > WARN_ON() when the notifier list is not-empty when removing an external
> > domain.  Long term we should probably extend page {un}pinning for the
> > caller to pass their notifier to be validated against the notifier list
> > rather than just allowing page pinning if *any* notifier is registered.
> > Thanks,  
> I was misled by the code comments. So when the commit a54eb55045ae is
> added, the only user of pin interface is mdev vendor driver, but now
> we also allow iommu backed group to use this interface to constraint
> dirty scope. Is vfio_iommu_unmap_unpin_all() a proper place to put
> this WARN()?

vfio_iommu_unmap_unpin_all() deals with removing vfio_dmas, it's
logically unrelated to whether any driver is registered to receive
unmap notifications.  Thanks,

Alex