linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] PCI: Introduce new MSI chip infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:00:05 +0100
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To:	Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] PCI: Introduce new MSI chip infrastructure

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:37:50AM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 08:51:46AM +0000, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > index ce93a34..ea4a5be 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/msi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/msi.h
> > @@ -58,5 +58,15 @@ extern int arch_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type);
> >  extern void arch_teardown_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev);
> >  extern int arch_msi_check_device(struct pci_dev* dev, int nvec, int type);
> >  
> > +struct msi_chip {
> > +	struct module *owner;
> > +	struct device *dev;
> > +
> > +	int (*setup_irq)(struct msi_chip *chip, struct pci_dev *dev,
> > +			 struct msi_desc *desc);
> > +	void (*teardown_irq)(struct msi_chip *chip, unsigned int irq);
> > +	int (*check_device)(struct msi_chip *chip, struct pci_dev *dev,
> > +			    int nvec, int type);
> > +};
> 
> Is there a need to add setup_irqs and teardown_irqs functions here? This will
> allow your MSI chips to support multiple MSIs per requesting device.
> 
> What about restore_msi_irqs? Does this fit in here too?

I guess those could be added as well. I've concentrated on the most
common use-cases here, which seem to be the three included functions.
Most other implementations use the generic implementations for multiple
MSIs.

Note that the proposed framework is in no way fixed and can be extended
at will. The important step is to get rid of the one implementation for
the whole kernel concept.

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped