5 Jun
2025
5 Jun
'25
5:04 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 12:16:48PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:11:07PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
I found the entire ictx would be locked by iommufd_access_create(), then the release fop couldn't even get invoked to destroy objects.
Yes, that makes sense..
It looks to me like you can safely leave ictx as NULL instead of adding a flag? That would be nicer than leaving a unrefcounted pointer floating around..
Hmm, there are a few iommufd_get_object calls using access->ictx in iommufd_access_attach() and iommufd_access_destroy().
We could have a set of internal access APIs to leave access->ictx as NULL, as an internal caller has an ictx to pass in. It's going to be a larger change though..
Thanks Nicolin