Re: [PATCH v19 11/20] s390/vfio-ap: prepare for dynamic update of guest's APCB on queue probe/remove

[Tony Krowiak]

On 5/27/22 9:36 AM, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> On 4/4/22 18:10, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> > The callback functions for probing and removing a queue device must take
> > and release the locks required to perform a dynamic update of a guest's
> > APCB in the proper order.
> >
> > The proper order for taking the locks is:
> >
> >          matrix_dev->guests_lock => kvm->lock => matrix_dev->mdevs_lock
> >
> > The proper order for releasing the locks is:
> >
> >          matrix_dev->mdevs_lock => kvm->lock => matrix_dev->guests_lock
> >
> > A new helper function is introduced to be used by the probe callback to
> > acquire the required locks. Since the probe callback only has
> > access to a queue device when it is called, the helper function will 
> > find
> > the ap_matrix_mdev object to which the queue device's APQN is 
> > assigned and
> > return it so the KVM guest to which the mdev is attached can be 
> > dynamically
> > updated.
> >
> > Note that in order to find the ap_matrix_mdev (matrix_mdev) object, 
> > it is
> > necessary to search the matrix_dev->mdev_list. This presents a
> > locking order dilemma because the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock can't be 
> > taken to
> > protect against changes to the list while searching for the 
> > matrix_mdev to
> > which a queue device's APQN is assigned. This is due to the fact that 
> > the
> > proper locking order requires that the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock be taken
> > after both the matrix_mdev->kvm->lock and the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock.
> > Consequently, the matrix_dev->guests_lock will be used to protect 
> > against
> > removal of a matrix_mdev object from the list while a queue device is
> > being probed. This necessitates changes to the mdev probe/remove
> > callback functions to take the matrix_dev->guests_lock prior to removing
> > a matrix_mdev object from the list.
> >
> > A new macro is also introduced to acquire the locks required to 
> > dynamically
> > update the guest's APCB in the proper order when a queue device is
> > removed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >   1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c 
> > b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> > index 2219b1069ceb..080a733f7cd2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> > @@ -116,6 +116,74 @@ static const struct vfio_device_ops 
> > vfio_ap_matrix_dev_ops;
> >       mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);        \
> >   })
> >   +/**
> > + * vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn: retrieve the matrix mdev 
> > to which an
> > + *                       APQN is assigned and acquire the
> > + *                       locks required to update the APCB of
> > + *                       the KVM guest to which the mdev is
> > + *                       attached.
> > + *
> > + * @apqn: the APQN of a queue device.
> > + *
> > + * The proper locking order is:
> > + * 1. matrix_dev->guests_lock: required to use the KVM pointer to 
> > update a KVM
> > + *                   guest's APCB.
> > + * 2. matrix_mdev->kvm->lock:  required to update a guest's APCB
> > + * 3. matrix_dev->mdevs_lock:  required to access data stored in a 
> > matrix_mdev
> > + *
> > + * Note: If @apqn is not assigned to a matrix_mdev, the 
> > matrix_mdev->kvm->lock
> > + *     will not be taken.
> > + *
> > + * Return: the ap_matrix_mdev object to which @apqn is assigned or 
> > NULL if @apqn
> > + *       is not assigned to an ap_matrix_mdev.
> > + */
> > +static struct ap_matrix_mdev 
> > *vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn(int apqn)
>
> vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn is "crazy long".
> How about:
>   get_mdev_for_apqn()
>
> This function is static and the terms mdev and apqn are specific 
> enough that I
> don't think it needs to start with vfio_ap. And there is no need to 
> state in
> the function name that locks are acquired. That point will be obvious 
> to anyone
> reading the prologue or the code.

The primary purpose of the function is to acquire the locks in the 
proper order, so
I think the name should state that purpose. It may be obvious to someone 
reading
the prologue or this function, but not so obvious in the context of the 
calling function.
Having said that, I will shorten the name to:

    get_update_locks_for_apqn



> Aside from that, Reviewed-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>