From: Omar Elghoul <oelghoul@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
agordeev@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com,
svens@linux.ibm.com, schnelle@linux.ibm.com,
mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, alifm@linux.ibm.com,
farman@linux.ibm.com, gbayer@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] vfio-pci/zdev: Add VFIO FMB device features
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:12:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <791e3c00-550a-4eb7-aeb7-5d3cc9bd5575@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260609164332.5dc548f5@shazbot.org>
On 6/9/26 6:43 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 13:18:49 -0400
> Omar Elghoul <oelghoul@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_zdev.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_zdev.c
>> index 0990fdb146b7..09454495ee23 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_zdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_zdev.c
>> @@ -167,3 +167,60 @@ void vfio_pci_zdev_close_device(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
>> if (zpci_kvm_hook.kvm_unregister)
>> zpci_kvm_hook.kvm_unregister(zdev);
>> }
>> +
>> +int vfio_pci_zdev_feature_fmb_enable(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, u32 flags,
>> + void __user *arg, size_t argsz)
>> +{
>> + struct zpci_dev *zdev;
>> + struct vfio_device_feature_zpci_fmb_enable fmb_enable;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = vfio_check_feature(flags, argsz, VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_SET, sizeof(fmb_enable));
>> + if (ret != 1)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + zdev = to_zpci(vdev->pdev);
>> + if (!zdev)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + guard(mutex)(&zdev->fmb_lock);
>> +
>> + if (copy_from_user(&fmb_enable, arg, sizeof(fmb_enable)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>
> The guard can drop to here, it doesn't protect anything related to the
> copy_from_user().
Acked
>
>> +
>> + if (fmb_enable.enabled)
>> + return zpci_fmb_reenable_device(zdev);
>> + return zpci_fmb_disable_device(zdev);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int vfio_pci_zdev_feature_fmb_read(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, u32 flags,
>> + void __user *arg, size_t argsz)
>> +{
>> + struct zpci_dev *zdev;
>> + struct vfio_device_feature_zpci_fmb_read fmb_read;
>> + struct zpci_fmb fmb_temp = {0};
>
> Unnecessary initialization, we only copy to the user what's been
> written.
Acked as well
>
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = vfio_check_feature(flags, argsz, VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_GET, sizeof(fmb_read));
>> + if (ret != 1)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + zdev = to_zpci(vdev->pdev);
>> + if (!zdev)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + guard(mutex)(&zdev->fmb_lock);
>> +
>> + if (!zdev->fmb)
>> + return -ENOMSG;
>> + if (copy_from_user(&fmb_read, arg, sizeof(fmb_read)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + if (!fmb_read.data)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + memcpy(&fmb_temp, zdev->fmb, zdev->fmb_length);
>> + if (copy_to_user(fmb_read.data, &fmb_temp, zdev->fmb_length))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>
> The bounce buffer itself seems unnecessary in this usage, we could just:
>
> if (copy_to_user(fmb_read.data, zdev->fmb, zdev->fmb_length))
>
> But maybe there was an intention to scope the bounce buffer copy within
> the guard and perform the copy_to_user() after releasing the lock?
I did not have that intention actually. This was to avoid a particular
issue with copying from a kmem_cache object to userspace. I guess an
alternate solution could be to initialize the SLUB object itself to
allow usercopy without making this a VFIO concern.
>
>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>> index 5de618a3a5ee..3988e8690e0b 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>> @@ -1534,6 +1534,35 @@ struct vfio_device_feature_dma_buf {
>> */
>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MIG_PRECOPY_INFOv2 12
>>
>> +/**
>> + * Upon VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_SET, enable or disable FMB for the VFIO zPCI device.
>> + *
>> + * enabled is treated as a bool, so any non-zero value evaluates to true. This
>> + * feature fails on attempt to double enable/disable.
>
> Does it? Double enable just does a re-enable.
My bad, I meant to remove the "re" from "reenable".
>
>> + *
>> + * Returns: 0 on success, -1 and errno set appropriately on error.
>> + */
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_ZPCI_FMB_ENABLE 13
>> +
>> +struct vfio_device_feature_zpci_fmb_enable {
>> + __u8 enabled;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Upon VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_GET, provide FMB passthrough for VFIO zPCI devices.
>> + *
>> + * The user-provided buffer must be at least fmb_length large, where fmb_length
>> + * is reported in VFIO_DEVICE_INFO_CAP_ZPCI_BASE.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: 0 on success, -1 and errno set appropriately on error. errno==ENOMSG
>> + * when the FMB is not enabled.
>> + */
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_ZPCI_FMB_READ 14
>> +
>> +struct vfio_device_feature_zpci_fmb_read {
>> + void __user *data;
>
> We should use explicit data sizes for uAPI:
>
> __aligned_u64 data;
Noted, will amend in the next version. Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-10 0:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-08 17:18 [PATCH v3 0/4] vfio-pci/zdev: Improved zPCI Function Measurement Support Omar Elghoul
2026-06-08 17:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] s390/pci: Hold fmb_lock when enabling or disabling PCI devices Omar Elghoul
2026-06-09 19:52 ` Niklas Schnelle
2026-06-08 17:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] s390/pci: Preserve FMB state in device re-enablement Omar Elghoul
2026-06-08 17:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] vfio-pci/zdev: Add VFIO FMB device features Omar Elghoul
2026-06-09 22:43 ` Alex Williamson
2026-06-10 0:12 ` Omar Elghoul [this message]
2026-06-08 17:18 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] s390/pci: Fence FMB enable/disable via sysfs for passthrough devices Omar Elghoul
2026-06-09 22:52 ` Alex Williamson
2026-06-10 0:32 ` Omar Elghoul
2026-06-10 9:07 ` Niklas Schnelle
2026-06-10 12:54 ` Omar Elghoul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=791e3c00-550a-4eb7-aeb7-5d3cc9bd5575@linux.ibm.com \
--to=oelghoul@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alex@shazbot.org \
--cc=alifm@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gbayer@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome