linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: vfio-ap: Refactor vfio

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: <b4a77364-3924-20d7-42cd-e011106e0301@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:31:58 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
        schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        pmorel@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: vfio-ap: Refactor vfio_ap driver probe and
 remove callbacks

On 6/18/19 12:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:39:34 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> In order to limit the number of private mdev functions called from the
>> vfio_ap device driver as well as to provide a landing spot for dynamic
>> configuration code related to binding/unbinding AP queue devices to/from
>> the vfio_ap driver, the following changes are being introduced:
>>
>> * Move code from the vfio_ap driver's probe callback into a function
>>    defined in the mdev private operations file.
>>
>> * Move code from the vfio_ap driver's remove callback into a function
>>    defined in the mdev private operations file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c     | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |  6 +++---
>>   3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> index 003662aa8060..3c60df70891b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c
>> @@ -49,15 +49,15 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(vfio_ap, ap_queue_ids);
>>    */
>>   static int vfio_ap_queue_dev_probe(struct ap_device *apdev)
>>   {
>> -	struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
>> -
>> -	q = kzalloc(sizeof(*q), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -	if (!q)
>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>> -	dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, q);
>> -	q->apqn = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device)->qid;
>> -	q->saved_isc = VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID;
>> +	int ret;
>> +	struct ap_queue *queue = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device);
>> +
>> +	ret = vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(queue);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>>   	return 0;
>> +
> 
> Maybe you could even condense this into a simple
> 
> return vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(to_ap_queue(&apdev->device));
> 
> (Unless you plan to do more things with queue in a future patch, of
> course.)

Consider it done.

> 
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
> 
> (...)
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> index f46dde56b464..5cc3c2ebf151 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h
>> @@ -90,8 +90,6 @@ struct ap_matrix_mdev {
>>   
>>   extern int vfio_ap_mdev_register(void);
>>   extern void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(void);
>> -int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(unsigned int apid, unsigned int apqi,
>> -			     unsigned int retry);
> 
> If you don't need that function across files anymore, you probably want
> to make it static.

Yes.

> 
>>   
>>   struct vfio_ap_queue {
>>   	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
>> @@ -100,5 +98,7 @@ struct vfio_ap_queue {
>>   #define VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID 0xff
>>   	unsigned char saved_isc;
>>   };
>> -struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_disable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q);
> 
> Same here.

Yes again.

> 
>> +int vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(struct ap_queue *queue);
>> +void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_queue *queue);
>> +
>>   #endif /* _VFIO_AP_PRIVATE_H_ */
>