From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3036AA0093; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:37:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057551D90E; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:37:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB221D8F0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:37:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590133022; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=alSolqSUTozqCguq2NmGA6ypDwh/rDcXvixzduvD0YE=; b=UpXv8jv58mFdDqG9Yx885uZ5ulK/kGvzrY+xYakTzr8rQpmi1QVnMX+zbk292OdojcHaBF CLvbNirqPqpqOlyVmzJqrKkbPBbpvfWRozpUrUBH26Qvu6A3awFTWT1x0Wppg7CUoT9c2D 3ei4fEkj/G8ys+7e0rQ84MH63Rvmpl4= Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-240-LN5VZktfMfe_Sc10OlJ5VA-1; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:37:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: LN5VZktfMfe_Sc10OlJ5VA-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id y192so3919482vky.2 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 00:37:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=alSolqSUTozqCguq2NmGA6ypDwh/rDcXvixzduvD0YE=; b=JndNzbjcH5bir0M+BV9AjhAxurLERz90UYku97foQuw/tjEXAYZNuUnR5QCyFxTLbG pkMt+32zrJCeRDsKXrlN+azH7UFlhrfb/oNIuULJzjSgSduLqgEF0lk+VT7LbC+7mK/O sUQYY5yA/BjzBA6DtE6UISeqEtQMJQ0h5CWSTcwmBprZkDjPsd5gvlEKe1w1+SnWwrW8 45mYkQ0ULR7NmC/GyxRBr2BzI9hTrjeZrAq+LzcciL7EfRDKLoM9XX/yQT83n5tzB/sr Vs8OCCYSbJoyXo19cfSg3OCs8QqWs8JcX4faoB8rigbGjXxAE7rbw2pi7jdQHRgC5A7U 0NiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325HghOygQcw6SkG4rWwpVJ1N/3VJJi8h8AkU9OJOsuY0iUB4Lz IzyRyjHdzPH5/ZW1eoLKQYr/rHjdmKXSnyfWx+jibJR1DubsM6FMFnfXFkr6dBvJ30+0bdpZbHV 5DIQWtvNIhzcbvOINm4M= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3273:: with SMTP id y48mr10009474uad.53.1590133019992; Fri, 22 May 2020 00:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTrq92cHP7Dcdw3UQ8/Wx+JJKUEUFxETQgr7AGgnvH5g2qXEihp+8UvfstxVMoJFQgR7vs6vfFO9uSm91dPaE= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3273:: with SMTP id y48mr10009457uad.53.1590133019630; Fri, 22 May 2020 00:36:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1589859720-16224-1-git-send-email-wangyunjian@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36:48 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: wangyunjian , Luca Boccassi , Kevin Traynor , dev , Hemant Agrawal , Sachin Saxena , "Lilijun (Jerry)" , xudingke , dpdk stable X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] vfio: fix check for vfio_group_fd X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:54 PM Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > > On 19-May-20 8:43 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:42 AM wangyunjian wrote: > >> > >> From: Yunjian Wang > >> > >> The issue is that a file descriptor at 0 is a valid one. Currently > >> the file not found, the return value will be set to 0. As a result, > >> it is impossible to distinguish between a correct descriptor and a > >> failed return value. Fix it to return -ENOENT instead of 0. > >> > >> Fixes: b758423bc4fe ("vfio: fix race condition with sysfs") > >> Fixes: ff0b67d1c868 ("vfio: DMA mappinge") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > This patch reverts the (marked for stable) fix b758423bc4fe ("vfio: > > fix race condition with sysfs") and comes with a different fix. > > > > - Kevin, Luca, I would put this b758423bc4fe backport on hold. > > > > - Anatoly, I don't want to put 20.05 at risk. > > My simple question for 20.05 is, should we revert b758423bc4fe? > > No, let's not revert anything. > > As far as i can tell, this patch is a more complete fix, but it > essentially does the same thing, just in a different (and better) way. > Still, i haven't reviewed it in detail. > > > > > - This patchset will go to 20.08 as I don't feel confident in taking it now. > > > > Yes, let's leave it for 20.08. Thanks for the analysis Anatoly. -- David Marchand