qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] pcie_sriov: Reuse SR-IOV VF device instances


From: Akihiko Odaki
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] pcie_sriov: Reuse SR-IOV VF device instances
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:26:56 +0900
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 2024/02/13 17:51, Minwoo Im wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: qemu-block-bounces+minwoo.im.dev=gmail.com@nongnu.org <qemu-block-
bounces+minwoo.im.dev=gmail.com@nongnu.org> On Behalf Of Akihiko Odaki
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 7:21 PM
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>; Michael S. Tsirkin
<mst@redhat.com>; Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>; Alex
Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>; Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>;
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>; Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>;
Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@habkost.net>; Sriram Yagnaraman
<sriram.yagnaraman@est.tech>; Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; Keith Busch
<kbusch@kernel.org>; Klaus Jensen <its@irrelevant.dk>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-block@nongnu.org; Akihiko Odaki
<akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 6/7] pcie_sriov: Reuse SR-IOV VF device instances

Disable SR-IOV VF devices by reusing code to power down PCI devices
instead of removing them when the guest requests to disable VFs. This
allows to realize devices and report VF realization errors at PF
realization time.

Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>

Hello Akihiko,

I think this patch fixes the issue reported in [1].  The latest master branch
also causes an object-related assertion error when we enable VF(s) and disable
through sysfs over and over again (at least twice).  But this issue is also
fixed with your patch.

**
ERROR:../qom/object.c:753:object_finalize: assertion failed: (obj->parent == 
NULL)
Bail out! ERROR:../qom/object.c:753:object_finalize: assertion failed: 
(obj->parent == NULL)

I'll note that in the next version.


Klaus,

If this patchset is applied, I think [1] can be dropped.  What do you think?

[1] should be kept. This patchset fixes use-after-free but double free [1] fixes still occurs.

Regards,
Akihiko Odaki


Thanks,

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20240109022953epcms2p54550dcfc9f831a515206513ae98e7511@epcms2p5/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]