linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqdomain: add empty irq_domain_check_msi

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:   Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:29:17 +0100
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Mian Yousaf Kaukab <yousaf.kaukab@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com
Cc:     will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqdomain: add empty irq_domain_check_msi_remap

Hi Marc,

On 02/03/2017 11:16, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/03/17 10:01, Mian Yousaf Kaukab wrote:
>> Fix following build error for s390:
>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c: In function 'vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group':
>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c:1290:25: error: implicit declaration of function 'irq_domain_check_msi_remap'
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <yousaf.kaukab@...e.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/irqdomain.h | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> index 188eced6813e..137817b08cdc 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> @@ -524,6 +524,10 @@ static inline struct irq_domain *irq_find_matching_fwnode(
>>  {
>>  	return NULL;
>>  }
>> +static inline bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void)
>> +{
>> +	return true;
> 
> I'm not sure about that one. If we don't support reserved regions for
> MSI, why should we return "true" here? My gut feeling is that it should
> be false (because we lack the infrastructure to deal with it).
> 
> It is a bit of a moot point since the only calling site will *not* call
> this in that case, but I believe that we should be consistent.
> 
> Eric, what do you think?

I agree with you. I Would return false here as just commented and I
don't think subsequent patch is needed.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>