> From: Pranjal Shrivastava <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2026 2:52 AM > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 09:48:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Pranjal Shrivastava <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2026 3:39 AM > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 04:43:20PM +0100, Matt Evans wrote: > > > > @@ -1264,7 +1265,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_reset(struct > > > vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, > > > > if (!vdev->reset_works) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > - vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev); > > > > + down_write(&vdev->memory_lock); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * This function can be invoked while the power state is > > > > non-D0. If > > > > @@ -1277,10 +1278,11 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_reset(struct > > > vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, > > > > */ > > > > vfio_pci_set_power_state(vdev, PCI_D0); > > > > > > > > - vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true); > > > > + vfio_pci_zap_revoke_bars(vdev); > > > > > > I'm wondering if this change in behavior is correct? > > > BEFORE this patch the sequence was: > > > > > > 1. zap vma mappings > > > 2. Enter D0 > > > > > > After this patch the sequence becomes > > > > > > 1. Take the lock > > > 2. Enter D0 > > > 3. zap vma mappings > > > > > > My worry is if user-space accesses a BAR *during* the transition to D0, > > > it could crash since the mappings still exist during the transition? > > > > not 'crash' as you also noted later with all Fs on read and dropped writes. > > Ack, "crash" is definitely a strong word, I just meant that the > user-space program isn't expecting to see all Fs today. Since today any > access during reset is faulted, however with this all apps may have to > lookout for all Fs during a read. Could this change cause existing apps > to crash?
I expect there will be certain handshake between the resetting process and any subordinary processes using the exported dmabuf. The device state right after a resetting is not functional. Presumably the resetting process (as the userspace driver of the entire device) needs to re-initialize the device into a state allowing dmabuf to work correctly again. This window is much larger than above, within which I'm not sure what'd be reasonable expectations from those apps. > > > > > > The old code is immune to it because it removed user-mappings first. > > > > > > Following the discussion from v1 regarding the ordering of > > > vfio_pci_dma_buf_move() and the D0 transition.. while it makes sense to > > > perform the DMABUF revocation/move after the hardware is in D0.. I'm > not > > > too confident about moving zap after D0 :/ > > > > probably add a comment to remind that ordering requirement for dma > > > > +1. That'd be helpful. > > > > > > > I mean, sure, the user would just see all Fs on a read and writes will > > > be dropped silently until we are in D0.. but the behaviour before this > > > change was that the user access will fault and hang on the memory_lock > > > instead which ensures that the user observes a consistent dev state.. > > > > > > > I see this more consistent from another angle. > > > > Old code only removes/blocks cpu access but not for device. DMAs > > are allowed to this device while it's transitioning between D0/D3. > > > > New code at least make this part consistent - both cpu/p2p are allowed > > in the transition window. > > > > Ideally a sane userspace shouldn't rely on the content read back when > > it has initiated a reset in parallel. So this behavior change sounds ok? > > I agree on the CPU / P2P consistency part. However, my concern is for a > shared reset scenario where a reset triggered by one process (I guess it > was vfio_assign_device_set?) can affect multiple devices in a dev_set > that are owned by different, unrelated processes. > > In the old code, these peer processes are protected because their BAR > mappings are zapped immediately. Their MMIO threads simply stall in > a page fault until the reset is complete. > > I agree for a single-reset scenario, sane user-space should never access > regions during a self-triggered reset. > > Am I missing something? > Given the resetting impact is intrusive, IMHO handshake/coordination is also required between processes operating on devices in a same dev_set otherwise peer processes will break quickly even with the protection in the old code. btw I don't remember all the detail but holds an impression there are restrictions on the caller owning all devices in a dev_set or they all belong to the same iommufd context...
