linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure adapters

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, 16 Aug 2018 09:30:15 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        thuth@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@...hat.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@...ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/22] s390: vfio-ap: sysfs interfaces to configure
 adapters

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:59:35 -0400
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 08/15/2018 05:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:07 -0400
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> >> +/**
> >> + * unassign_adapter_store
> >> + *
> >> + * @dev: the matrix device
> >> + * @attr: a mediated matrix device attribute
> >> + * @buf: a buffer containing the adapter ID (APID) to be assigned
> >> + * @count: the number of bytes in @buf
> >> + *
> >> + * Parses the APID from @buf and unassigns it from the mediated matrix device.
> >> + * The APID must be a valid value  
> > A valid value, but not necessarily assigned, right?  
> 
> You are correct, if the APID is not assigned, then the corresponding bit 
> will be
> cleared regardless. In a previous version, the functions failed if the 
> APID is
> not assigned, but a colleague removed that check. I guess it makes sense 
> given
> it really does not hurt anything to ask to unassign an APID that isn't 
> assigned
> to begin with. Would you prefer I update the comment, or do you feel the 
> user
> should be made aware of an attempt to unassign an APID that is not assigned?

I think the code is fine; updating the comment would be good.