On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 06:40:57PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> On 2025/1/19 04:32, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 04:23:22PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > > On 2025/1/11 11:32, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +static int iommufd_hwpt_attach_device(struct iommufd_hw_pagetable
> > > > *hwpt,
> > > > + struct iommufd_device *idev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iommufd_attach_handle *handle;
> > > > + int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (hwpt->fault) {
> > > > + rc = iommufd_fault_domain_attach_dev(hwpt, idev, true);
> > > > + if (rc)
> > > > + return rc;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + handle = kzalloc(sizeof(*handle), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!handle) {
> > > > + rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + goto out_fault_detach;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + handle->idev = idev;
> > > > + rc = iommu_attach_group_handle(hwpt->domain,
> > > > idev->igroup->group,
> > > > + &handle->handle);
> > > > + if (rc)
> > > > + goto out_free_handle;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +out_free_handle:
> > > > + kfree(handle);
> > > > + handle = NULL;
> > > > +out_fault_detach:
> > > > + if (hwpt->fault)
> > > > + iommufd_fault_domain_detach_dev(hwpt, idev, handle,
> > > > true);
> > > > + return rc;
> > > > +}
> >
> > Here the revert path passes in a handle=NULL..
>
> aha. got it. Perhaps we can allocate handle first. In the below thread, it
> is possible that a failed domain may have pending PRIs, it would require
> the caller to call the auto response. Although, we are likely to swap the
> order, but it is nice to have for the caller to do it.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/f685daca-081a-4ede-b1e1-559009fa9...@intel.com/
Hmm, I don't really see a point in letting the detach flow to
scan the two lists in hwpt->fault against a zero-ed handle...
which feels like a waste of CPU cycles?
And I am not sure how that xa_insert part is realted?
Thanks
Nic
