lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 6/9] Revert "iommu/arm-smmu: Make arm-smmu-v3 explicitly non-modular"
From
Date
On 08/11/2019 17:32, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:25:09PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 08/11/2019 16:47, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:44:25PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>> BTW, it now looks like it was your v1 series I was testing there, on your
>>>> branch iommu/module. It would be helpful to update for ease of testing.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry about that. I'll update it now (although I'm not sure it will
>>> help with this -- I was going to see what happens with other devices such
>>> as the intel-iommu or storage controllers)
>>
>> So I tried your v2 series for this - it has the same issue, as I
>> anticipated.
>
> Right, I'm just not sure how resilient drivers are expected to be to force
> unbinding like this. You can break lots of stuff with root...

For sure, but it is good practice to limit that.

I had to fix something like this recently, so know about it... another
potential problem is use-after-frees, where your device managed memory
is freed at removal but still registered somewhere.

>
>> It seems that some iommu drivers do call iommu_device_register(), so maybe a
>> decent reference. Or simply stop the driver being unbound.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about iommu_device_register() (we call that
> already),

Sorry, I meant to say iommu_device_unregister().

but I guess we can keep the '.suppress_bind_attrs = true' if
> necessary.

It may be good to add it to older stable kernels also, pre c07b6426df92.

I'll have a play on my laptop and see how well that works if
> you start unbinding stuff.

Cheers,
John

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-08 18:50    [W:0.044 / U:24.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site