linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 3/5] PCI/ATS: Skip VF ATS initialization if PF does not implement it

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:   Mon, 6 May 2019 22:35:38 +0000
From:   "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com>
To:     "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:     "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ashok.raj@...el.com" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "keith.busch@...el.com" <keith.busch@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/5] PCI/ATS: Skip VF ATS initialization if PF does not
 implement it



> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
> sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 12:20 PM
> To: bhelgaas@...gle.com
> Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; ashok.raj@...el.com;
> keith.busch@...el.com; sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
> Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] PCI/ATS: Skip VF ATS initialization if PF does not implement it
> 
> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> If PF does not implement ATS and VF implements/uses it, it might lead to
> runtime issues. Also, as per spec r4.0, sec 9.3.7.8, PF should implement
> ATS if VF implements it. So add additional check to confirm given device
> aligns with the spec.
...
> +	/*
> +	 * Per PCIe r4.0, sec 9.3.7.8, if VF implements Address Translation
> +	 * Services (ATS) Extended Capability then corresponding PF should
> +	 * also implement it.
> +	 */
...

In standardese, "should" means recommended, not required. The PCIe spec uses
"must" for this rule; the comments should match.