[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <54A1618A-3DAC-43A7-8FCD-1EE8992F7413@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:28:18 -0700
From: Yinghai <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, irq: Check if irq is remapped before freeing irte
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
>>> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c
>>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int get_irte(int irq, struct irte *entry
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> int index;
>>>
>>> - if (!entry || !irq_iommu)
>>> + if (!entry || !irq_iommu || !irq_iommu->iommu)
>>> return -1;
>>
>> Hmm, why do we need this? This is only called from
>> ir_ioapic_set_affinity() and ir_msi_set_affinity().
>>
>> We should never end up there when intr_remapping=off, right ?
>
> Thinking more about it, this check is actively bogus. The call sites do:
>
> struct irte irte;
>
> if (get_irte(irq, &irte))
> return -1;
>
> So entry _CANNOT_ be NULL.
>
> And in fact we should change get_irte() to
>
> get_irte(struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu, struct irte *entry)
>
> The call site already knows about it. No need to lookup irq_iommu
> based on the irq number.
Yes
--
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