linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/s390: Fix IOMMU groups

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]

Message-Id: <20170428152017.5e99d67f@thinkpad>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:20:17 +0200
From:   Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/s390: Fix IOMMU groups

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:12:32 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:11:42PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > > +void zpci_destroy_iommu(struct zpci_dev *zdev)
> > > +{
> > > +	iommu_group_put(zdev->group);
> > > +	zdev->group = NULL;
> > > +}  
> > 
> > While the rest of this patch doesn't seem to make much of a difference to
> > the current behavior, I'm wondering where this extra iommu_group_put()
> > comes from. It either was erroneously missing before this patch, or it
> > is erroneously introduced by this patch.  
> 
> This is the way to free an iommu-group. It was missing before probably
> because it was unclear whether the add_device function allocated a group
> or not. So there was no way to know if it needs to be put again in the
> remove_device function.

Hmm, for the reference count it should not matter whether a new group was
allocated or an existing group found with iommu_group_get(). Our add_device
callback always gets one reference either from iommu_group_get or _alloc,
and then another one from iommu_group_add_device(), after which the first
reference is put again. So there should always be one reference more after
a successful add_device.

Now I'm wondering where this one reference is put again, and I thought
that happened in the remove_device callback, where we call
iommu_group_remove_device(). Is this not correct? Just want to make sure
that we don't have a refcount issue in the current code.

Regards,
Gerald