On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group > > >> *iommu_group) > > >> +{ > > >> + struct vfio_group *group = > > >> vfio_group_get_from_iommu(iommu_group); > > >> + struct vfio_device *device; > > > > > > Check group for NULL. > > > > OK - FWIW in context this should only ever make sense to call with an > > iommu_group which has already been derived from a vfio_group, and I did > > initially consider a check with a WARN_ON(), but then decided that the > > unguarded dereference would be a sufficiently strong message. No problem > > with bringing that back to make it more defensive if that's what you prefer. > > A while down the road, that's a bit too much implicit knowledge of the > intent and single purpose of this function just to simply avoid a test.
I think we should just pass the 'struct vfio_group *' into the attach_group op and have this API take that type in and forget the vfio_group_get_from_iommu(). At this point there is little justification for vfio_group_get_from_iommu() existing at all, it should be folded into the one use in vfio_group_find_or_alloc() and the locking widened so we don't have the unlock/alloc/lock race that requires it to be called twice. > I'd lean towards Kevin's idea that we could store bus_type on the > vfio_group and pass that to type1, with the same assumptions we're > making in the commit log that it's consistent, but that doesn't get us > closer to the long term plan of dropping the bus_type interfaces > AIUI. Right, the point is to get a representative struct device here to use. Jason _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu