Commit 6d6768c6 authored by Alex Williamson's avatar Alex Williamson

vfio: Limit group opens

vfio_group_fops_open attempts to limit concurrent sessions by
disallowing opens once group->container is set.  This really doesn't
do what we want and allow for inconsistent behavior, for instance a
group can be opened twice, then a container set giving the user two
file descriptors to the group.  But then it won't allow more to be
opened.  There's not much reason to have the group opened multiple
times since most access is through devices or the container, so
complete what the original code intended and only allow a single
instance.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
parent f5bfdbf2
......@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ struct vfio_group {
struct notifier_block nb;
struct list_head vfio_next;
struct list_head container_next;
atomic_t opened;
};
struct vfio_device {
......@@ -206,6 +207,7 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_create_group(struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group->device_list);
mutex_init(&group->device_lock);
atomic_set(&group->container_users, 0);
atomic_set(&group->opened, 0);
group->iommu_group = iommu_group;
group->nb.notifier_call = vfio_iommu_group_notifier;
......@@ -1236,12 +1238,22 @@ static long vfio_group_fops_compat_ioctl(struct file *filep,
static int vfio_group_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
{
struct vfio_group *group;
int opened;
group = vfio_group_get_from_minor(iminor(inode));
if (!group)
return -ENODEV;
/* Do we need multiple instances of the group open? Seems not. */
opened = atomic_cmpxchg(&group->opened, 0, 1);
if (opened) {
vfio_group_put(group);
return -EBUSY;
}
/* Is something still in use from a previous open? */
if (group->container) {
atomic_dec(&group->opened);
vfio_group_put(group);
return -EBUSY;
}
......@@ -1259,6 +1271,8 @@ static int vfio_group_fops_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
vfio_group_try_dissolve_container(group);
atomic_dec(&group->opened);
vfio_group_put(group);
return 0;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment