linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow interrupts from the entire bus for aliased devices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:58:59 -0800
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Eric Pilmore <epilmore@...aio.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linux-ntb@...glegroups.com, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow interrupts from the entire bus
 for aliased devices

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:40:36 -0700
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com> wrote:

> On 2019-02-05 12:19 p.m., Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 10:27:29 -0700
> > Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 2019-02-01 9:44 a.m., Joerg Roedel wrote:  
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:56:48AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe
> >>> wrote:    
> >>>> @@ -394,6 +402,10 @@ static int set_msi_sid(struct irte *irte,
> >>>> struct pci_dev *dev) set_irte_sid(irte, SVT_VERIFY_BUS,
> >>>> SQ_ALL_16, PCI_DEVID(PCI_BUS_NUM(data.alias),
> >>>>  				       dev->bus->number));  
> > I guess devfn can be removed also. but that is separate cleanup.  
> 
> Actually, no, I've dug into this and we *do* need the devfn here but
> it's needlessly confusing. We should not be using PCI_DEVID() as we
> aren't actually representing a DEVID in this case...
> 
> According to the Intel VT-D spec, when using SVT_VERIFY_BUS, the MSB
> of the SID field represents the starting bus number and the LSB
> represents the end bus number. The requester id's bus number must
> then be within that range. The PCI_DEVID macro matches these
> semantics if you assume the devfn is the end bus, but doesn't really
> make sense here and just confuses the issue.
> 
> So the code was correct, I'll just try to clean it up to make it less
> confusing.
> 
you are right, thanks for explaining.
> Thanks,
> 
> Logan