linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure adapters

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, 17 Aug 2018 09:23:26 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@...hat.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@...ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 adapters

On 08/16/2018 03:30 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:59:35 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2018 05:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:07 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * unassign_adapter_store
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @dev: the matrix device
>>>> + * @attr: a mediated matrix device attribute
>>>> + * @buf: a buffer containing the adapter ID (APID) to be assigned
>>>> + * @count: the number of bytes in @buf
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Parses the APID from @buf and unassigns it from the mediated matrix device.
>>>> + * The APID must be a valid value
>>> A valid value, but not necessarily assigned, right?
>> You are correct, if the APID is not assigned, then the corresponding bit
>> will be
>> cleared regardless. In a previous version, the functions failed if the
>> APID is
>> not assigned, but a colleague removed that check. I guess it makes sense
>> given
>> it really does not hurt anything to ask to unassign an APID that isn't
>> assigned
>> to begin with. Would you prefer I update the comment, or do you feel the
>> user
>> should be made aware of an attempt to unassign an APID that is not assigned?
> I think the code is fine; updating the comment would be good.

Will do.

>