[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080709191827.dbdfcd96.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:18:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bhavna.sarathy@....com,
Sebastian.Biemueller@....com, robert.richter@....com,
joro@...tes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/34] AMD IOMMU: add functions to find IOMMU device
resources
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:27:59 +0200 Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> This patch adds functions necessary to find the IOMMU resources for a specific
> device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> index c43d15d..47e80b5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> @@ -461,3 +461,78 @@ free_dma_dom:
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static struct protection_domain *domain_for_device(u16 devid)
> +{
> + struct protection_domain *dom;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + read_lock_irqsave(&amd_iommu_devtable_lock, flags);
Why is this cheerfully undocumented lock irq-safe? Is it ever taken from
IRQ context?
> + dom = amd_iommu_pd_table[devid];
> + read_unlock_irqrestore(&amd_iommu_devtable_lock, flags);
> +
> + return dom;
> +}
The locking in this function makes no sense. We drop the lock then return
a value which the caller cannot use in a race-free fashion, because the
lock is no longer held.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists