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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: do not use open locks during
 VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM notification
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com,
        hca@linux.ibm.com
References: <20210625220758.80365-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
 <20210628173448.GG4459@nvidia.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <cc14f238-ba11-e388-06ec-027912fc313c@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:20:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210628173448.GG4459@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 6/28/21 1:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 06:07:58PM -0400, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>   static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
>>   {
>> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>   
>> +	if ((matrix_mdev->kvm) && (matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd)) {
>>   		mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> +		down_write(&matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>> +		matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
>> +		up_write(&matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>>   
>> +		kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>   
>>   		mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>   		vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
>>   		kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>   		matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
>> +		mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>   	}
> Doesn't a flow exit the function with matrix_dev->lock held he

How can that happen? What flow?

>
> Write it with 'success oriented flow'

I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify this statement?

>
> I didn't check if everything makes sense, but it sure looks clean.
>
> Jason