linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/09] iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Write IMCTR twice

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, 9 Mar 2017 12:57:15 +0900
From:   Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     joro <joro@...tes.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/09] iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Write IMCTR twice

Hi Robin,

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> On 08/03/17 11:02, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> From: Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@...nsource.se>
>>
>> Write IMCTR both in the root device and the leaf node.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@...nsource.se>
>> ---
>>
>>  Changes since V2:
>>  - None
>>
>>  Changes since V1:
>>  - None
>>
>>  drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c |   17 ++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- 0018/drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c
>> +++ work/drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c   2017-03-08 18:30:36.870607110 +0900
>> @@ -286,6 +286,16 @@ static void ipmmu_ctx_write(struct ipmmu
>>       ipmmu_write(domain->root, domain->context_id * IM_CTX_SIZE + reg, data);
>>  }
>>
>> +static void ipmmu_ctx_write2(struct ipmmu_vmsa_domain *domain, unsigned int reg,
>> +                          u32 data)
>
> That's pretty cryptic. Maybe both functions could do with less ambiguous
> names - something like ipmmu_ctx_write_root() vs. ipmmu_ctx_write_all(),
> perhaps? (and if there's a more specific hardware term than "all" that
> describes this kind of configuration, even better).

Yeah I agree. Will fix in next version!

Thanks,

/ magnus