| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1299746528.17339.721.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:42:08 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen: events: push setup of
irq<->{evtchn,ipi,virq,pirq} maps into irq_info init functions
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 04:56 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:41:21PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Encapsulate setup of XXX_to_irq array in the relevant
> > xen_irq_info_*_init function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/xen/events.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > index 72725fa..cf372d4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static struct irq_info *info_for_irq(unsigned irq)
> >
> > /* Constructors for packed IRQ information. */
> > static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
> > + unsigned irq,
> > enum xen_irq_type type,
> > unsigned short evtchn,
> > unsigned short cpu)
> > @@ -136,6 +137,8 @@ static void xen_irq_info_common_init(struct irq_info *info,
> > info->type = type;
> > info->evtchn = evtchn;
> > info->cpu = cpu;
> > +
> > + evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
>
> Is there any case where this would lead to an over-write? Should we
> have an
> WARN_ON(evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] != -1)
>
> just to check?
This patch is pure code motion so there should be no more need for a
check than there was before.
I don't think it can happen, the callers are either running in a context
where the evtchn mapping has just been zapped (e.g. resume) or they
include an explicit check of evtchn_to_irq before getting this far (e.g.
bind_evtchn_to_irq and friends).
In any case, not much further down the series this switches to
initialising a recently allocated irq_info structure so we wouldn't
catch any errors this way.
Ian.
> > }
> >
> > static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
> > @@ -143,29 +146,35 @@ static void xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(unsigned irq,
> > {
> > struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
> >
> > - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
> > + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_EVTCHN, evtchn, 0);
> > }
> >
> > -static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned irq,
> > +static void xen_irq_info_ipi_init(unsigned cpu,
> > + unsigned irq,
> > unsigned short evtchn,
> > enum ipi_vector ipi)
> > {
> > struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
> >
> > - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
> > + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_IPI, evtchn, 0);
> >
> > info->u.ipi = ipi;
> > +
> > + per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;
>
> Ditto. Should we do a check first to see if we are overwritting anything
> but the default value of -1?
> > }
> >
> > -static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned irq,
> > +static void xen_irq_info_virq_init(unsigned cpu,
> > + unsigned irq,
> > unsigned short evtchn,
> > unsigned short virq)
> > {
> > struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
> >
> > - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> > + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_VIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> >
> > info->u.virq = virq;
> > +
> > + per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
> > }
> >
> > static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
> > @@ -177,12 +186,14 @@ static void xen_irq_info_pirq_init(unsigned irq,
> > {
> > struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(irq);
> >
> > - xen_irq_info_common_init(info, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> > + xen_irq_info_common_init(info, irq, IRQT_PIRQ, evtchn, 0);
> >
> > info->u.pirq.pirq = pirq;
> > info->u.pirq.gsi = gsi;
> > info->u.pirq.vector = vector;
> > info->u.pirq.flags = flags;
> > +
> > + pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -644,7 +655,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_gsi_to_irq(unsigned gsi,
> >
> > xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, gsi, irq_op.vector,
> > shareable ? PIRQ_SHAREABLE : 0);
> > - pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
> >
> > out:
> > spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> > @@ -682,7 +692,6 @@ int xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
> > handle_level_irq, name);
> >
> > xen_irq_info_pirq_init(irq, 0, pirq, 0, vector, 0);
> > - pirq_to_irq[pirq] = irq;
> > ret = set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto error_irq;
> > @@ -746,7 +755,6 @@ int bind_evtchn_to_irq(unsigned int evtchn)
> > set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &xen_dynamic_chip,
> > handle_fasteoi_irq, "event");
> >
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -779,9 +787,7 @@ static int bind_ipi_to_irq(unsigned int ipi, unsigned int cpu)
> > BUG();
> > evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
> >
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > - xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> > - per_cpu(ipi_to_irq, cpu)[ipi] = irq;
> > + xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
> >
> > bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> > }
> > @@ -814,10 +820,7 @@ int bind_virq_to_irq(unsigned int virq, unsigned int cpu)
> > BUG();
> > evtchn = bind_virq.port;
> >
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > - xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> > -
> > - per_cpu(virq_to_irq, cpu)[virq] = irq;
> > + xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
> >
> > bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> > }
> > @@ -1120,7 +1123,6 @@ void rebind_evtchn_irq(int evtchn, int irq)
> > so there should be a proper type */
> > BUG_ON(info->type == IRQT_UNBOUND);
> >
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > xen_irq_info_evtchn_init(irq, evtchn);
> >
> > spin_unlock(&irq_mapping_update_lock);
> > @@ -1288,8 +1290,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_virqs(unsigned int cpu)
> > evtchn = bind_virq.port;
> >
> > /* Record the new mapping. */
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > - xen_irq_info_virq_init(irq, evtchn, virq);
> > + xen_irq_info_virq_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, virq);
> > bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -1313,8 +1314,7 @@ static void restore_cpu_ipis(unsigned int cpu)
> > evtchn = bind_ipi.port;
> >
> > /* Record the new mapping. */
> > - evtchn_to_irq[evtchn] = irq;
> > - xen_irq_info_ipi_init(irq, evtchn, ipi);
> > + xen_irq_info_ipi_init(cpu, irq, evtchn, ipi);
> > bind_evtchn_to_cpu(evtchn, cpu);
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 1.5.6.5
--
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