backends/iommufd: Remove mutex

[PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of backend users

Posted by Cédric Le Goater 2 years, 1 month ago

QOM already has a ref count on objects and it will assert much
earlier, when INT_MAX is reached.

Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
---
 backends/iommufd.c | 5 -----
 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
index ba58a0eb0d0ba9aae625c987eb728547543dba66..393c0d9a3719e3de1a6b51a8ff2e75e184badc82 100644
--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -80,11 +80,6 @@ int iommufd_backend_connect(IOMMUFDBackend *be, Error **errp)
     int fd, ret = 0;
 
     qemu_mutex_lock(&be->lock);
-    if (be->users == UINT32_MAX) {
-        error_setg(errp, "too many connections");
-        ret = -E2BIG;
-        goto out;
-    }
     if (be->owned && !be->users) {
         fd = qemu_open_old("/dev/iommu", O_RDWR);
         if (fd < 0) {
-- 
2.43.0

RE: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of backend users

Posted by Duan, Zhenzhong 2 years, 1 month ago

Hi Cédric,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 8:32 PM
>To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>Cc: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>; Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>; Duan,
>Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>; Cédric Le Goater
><clg@redhat.com>
>Subject: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of
>backend users
>
>QOM already has a ref count on objects and it will assert much
>earlier, when INT_MAX is reached.
>
>Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>

IIUC, /dev/iommu is opened on demand, be->users is used to catch underflow
or overflow due to mismatched iommufd_backend_connect/disconnect
pairs. It looks different from object ref count in purpose, but I agree
a correctly written code will never trigger such overflow/underflow.

So, for the series:
Reviewed-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>

BRs.
Zhenzhong

>---
> backends/iommufd.c | 5 -----
> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>index
>ba58a0eb0d0ba9aae625c987eb728547543dba66..393c0d9a3719e3de1a6b
>51a8ff2e75e184badc82 100644
>--- a/backends/iommufd.c
>+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>@@ -80,11 +80,6 @@ int iommufd_backend_connect(IOMMUFDBackend
>*be, Error **errp)
>     int fd, ret = 0;
>
>     qemu_mutex_lock(&be->lock);
>-    if (be->users == UINT32_MAX) {
>-        error_setg(errp, "too many connections");
>-        ret = -E2BIG;
>-        goto out;
>-    }
>     if (be->owned && !be->users) {
>         fd = qemu_open_old("/dev/iommu", O_RDWR);
>         if (fd < 0) {
>--
>2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of backend users

Posted by Cédric Le Goater 2 years, 1 month ago

Hello Zhenzhong,

On 1/3/24 02:40, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Hi Cédric,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 8:32 PM
>> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>> Cc: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>; Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>; Duan,
>> Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>; Cédric Le Goater
>> <clg@redhat.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of
>> backend users
>>
>> QOM already has a ref count on objects and it will assert much
>> earlier, when INT_MAX is reached.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
> 
> IIUC, /dev/iommu is opened on demand, be->users is used to catch underflow
> or overflow due to mismatched iommufd_backend_connect/disconnect
> pairs. 
>
> It looks different from object ref count in purpose, but I agree
> a correctly written code will never trigger such overflow/underflow.

Well, we could limit the number of devices sharing the same iommufd
backend but UINT32_MAX seems really too large and the object refcount
will fail earlier anyhow. The max open files per process limit will
also be reached before, since vfio opens a /dev/vfio/devices/vfiox
file per device.

So, this check didn't seem necessary after all.
  
> So, for the series:
> Reviewed-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>

You should reply to the cover letter with your R-b tag so that
it applies on the whole series.

Thanks,

C.




> BRs.
> Zhenzhong
> 
>> ---
>> backends/iommufd.c | 5 -----
>> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>> index
>> ba58a0eb0d0ba9aae625c987eb728547543dba66..393c0d9a3719e3de1a6b
>> 51a8ff2e75e184badc82 100644
>> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
>> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>> @@ -80,11 +80,6 @@ int iommufd_backend_connect(IOMMUFDBackend
>> *be, Error **errp)
>>      int fd, ret = 0;
>>
>>      qemu_mutex_lock(&be->lock);
>> -    if (be->users == UINT32_MAX) {
>> -        error_setg(errp, "too many connections");
>> -        ret = -E2BIG;
>> -        goto out;
>> -    }
>>      if (be->owned && !be->users) {
>>          fd = qemu_open_old("/dev/iommu", O_RDWR);
>>          if (fd < 0) {
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>

RE: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of backend users

Posted by Duan, Zhenzhong 2 years, 1 month ago


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of
>backend users
>
>Hello Zhenzhong,
>
>On 1/3/24 02:40, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>> Hi Cédric,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 8:32 PM
>>> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>>> Cc: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>; Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>;
>Duan,
>>> Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>; Cédric Le Goater
>>> <clg@redhat.com>
>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] backends/iommufd: Remove check on number of
>>> backend users
>>>
>>> QOM already has a ref count on objects and it will assert much
>>> earlier, when INT_MAX is reached.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
>>
>> IIUC, /dev/iommu is opened on demand, be->users is used to catch
>underflow
>> or overflow due to mismatched iommufd_backend_connect/disconnect
>> pairs.
>>
>> It looks different from object ref count in purpose, but I agree
>> a correctly written code will never trigger such overflow/underflow.
>
>Well, we could limit the number of devices sharing the same iommufd
>backend but UINT32_MAX seems really too large and the object refcount
>will fail earlier anyhow. The max open files per process limit will
>also be reached before, since vfio opens a /dev/vfio/devices/vfiox
>file per device.

Clear, thanks Cédric.

>
>So, this check didn't seem necessary after all.
>
>> So, for the series:
>> Reviewed-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
>
>You should reply to the cover letter with your R-b tag so that
>it applies on the whole series.

Sure.

BRs.
Zhenzhong