On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:56:14PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > + down_write(&vdev->memory_lock);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(priv, tmp, &vdev->dmabufs, dmabufs_elm)
> > > > {
> > > > + if (!get_file_active(&priv->dmabuf->file))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > +
> > > > + dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
> > > > + list_del_init(&priv->dmabufs_elm);
> > > > + priv->vdev = NULL;
> > > > + priv->revoked = true;
> > > > + dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);
> > > > + dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
> > > > + vfio_device_put_registration(&vdev->vdev);
> > > > + fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
> > >
> > > dma_buf_put(priv->dmabuf), consistent with other places.
> >
> > Someone else said this, I don't agree, the above got the get via
> >
> > get_file_active() instead of a dma_buf version..
> >
> > So we should pair with get_file_active() vs fput().
> >
> > Christian rejected the idea of adding a dmabuf wrapper for
> > get_file_active(), oh well.
>
> Okay then vfio_pci_dma_buf_move() should be changed. It uses
> get_file_active() to pair dma_buf_put().
Makes sense, Leon can you fix it?
Thanks,
Jason
