Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] s390/vfio-ap: clean up vfio_ap resources when KVM pointer invalidated | From | Tony Krowiak <> | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:48:44 -0500 |
| |
On 12/14/20 2:43 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 02:39:17PM -0500, Tony Krowiak wrote: >> >> On 12/14/20 12:07 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:56:17AM -0500, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>> The vfio_ap device driver registers a group notifier with VFIO when the >>>> file descriptor for a VFIO mediated device for a KVM guest is opened to >>>> receive notification that the KVM pointer is set (VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM >>>> event). When the KVM pointer is set, the vfio_ap driver takes the >>>> following actions: >>>> 1. Stashes the KVM pointer in the vfio_ap_mdev struct that holds the state >>>> of the mediated device. >>>> 2. Calls the kvm_get_kvm() function to increment its reference counter. >>>> 3. Sets the function pointer to the function that handles interception of >>>> the instruction that enables/disables interrupt processing. >>>> 4. Sets the masks in the KVM guest's CRYCB to pass AP resources through to >>>> the guest. >>>> >>>> In order to avoid memory leaks, when the notifier is called to receive >>>> notification that the KVM pointer has been set to NULL, the vfio_ap device >>>> driver should reverse the actions taken when the KVM pointer was set. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 258287c994de ("s390: vfio-ap: implement mediated device open callback") >>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> <formletter> >>> >>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the >>> stable kernel tree. Please read: >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html >>> for how to do this properly. >>> >>> </formletter> >> I read the document on the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in >> the stable kernel. I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't see the >> problem. Can you help me out here? Does a patch that fixes a memory leak >> not qualify or is it something else? > You forgot to put "Cc: stable..." in the signed-off-by area. > > thanks,
Option 1, I must be blind. thanks
> > greg k-h
| |