linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu/dma-iommu: Split iommu_dma_map_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]

Message-ID: <7af177e1-dfd9-2a91-3fd9-dfe53a6a9014@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:55:34 +0100
From:   Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        logang@...tatee.com, douliyangs@...il.com,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, marc.zyngier@....com,
        jason@...edaemon.net, tglx@...utronix.de, joro@...tes.org,
        robin.murphy@....com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu/dma-iommu: Split iommu_dma_map_msi_msg in two
 parts

Hi,

On 4/23/19 8:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:26:06PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> +int iommu_dma_prepare_msi(struct msi_desc *desc, phys_addr_t msi_addr)
>>   {
>> +	struct device *dev = msi_desc_to_dev(desc);
>>   	struct iommu_domain *domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev);
>>   	struct iommu_dma_cookie *cookie;
>>   	unsigned long flags;
>>   
>> +	if (!domain || !domain->iova_cookie) {
>> +		desc->iommu_cookie = NULL;
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   	cookie = domain->iova_cookie;
>>   
>> @@ -908,10 +908,33 @@ void iommu_dma_map_msi_msg(int irq, struct msi_msg *msg)
>>   	 * of an MSI from within an IPI handler.
>>   	 */
>>   	spin_lock_irqsave(&cookie->msi_lock, flags);
>> +	desc->iommu_cookie = iommu_dma_get_msi_page(dev, msi_addr, domain);
>>   	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cookie->msi_lock, flags);
>>   
>> +	return (desc->iommu_cookie) ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> 
> No need for the braces.  Also I personally find a:
> 
> 	if (!desc->iommu_cookie)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 	return 0;
> 
> much more readable, but that might just be personal preference.

I am happy either way. I will use your suggestion in the next version.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall