linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V1 3/7] x86/ims: Add support for a new IMS irq domain

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: <20190913145232.GC5310@mellanox.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:52:37 +0000
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Megha Dey <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "ashok.raj@...el.com" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "megha.dey@...el.com" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
        "jacob.jun.pan@...el.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sanjay Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 3/7] x86/ims: Add support for a new IMS irq domain

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 06:32:04PM -0700, Megha Dey wrote:
> +/*
> + * Determine if a dev is mdev or not. Return NULL if not mdev device.
> + * Return mdev's parent dev if success.
> + */
> +static inline struct device *mdev_to_parent(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct device *ret = NULL;
> +	struct device *(*fn)(struct device *dev);
> +	struct bus_type *bus = symbol_get(mdev_bus_type);
> +
> +	if (bus && dev->bus == bus) {
> +		fn = symbol_get(mdev_dev_to_parent_dev);
> +		ret = fn(dev);
> +		symbol_put(mdev_dev_to_parent_dev);
> +		symbol_put(mdev_bus_type);
> +	}

Yuk, arch code should not have special knowledge about vfio-mdev, and
in any case the above way to get it is really gross.

> +static struct msi_domain_ops dev_ims_domain_ops = {
> +	.get_hwirq	= msi_get_hwirq,
> +	.msi_prepare	= dev_ims_prepare,
> +};
> +
> +static struct irq_chip dev_ims_ir_controller = {
> +	.name			= "IR-DEV-IMS",
> +	.irq_unmask		= dev_ims_unmask_irq,
> +	.irq_mask		= dev_ims_mask_irq,
> +	.irq_ack		= irq_chip_ack_parent,
> +	.irq_retrigger		= irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
> +	.irq_set_vcpu_affinity	= irq_chip_set_vcpu_affinity_parent,
> +	.flags			= IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE,
> +	.irq_write_msi_msg	= dev_ims_write_msg,
> +};

It seems really weird to wrapper an irq_chip like this, if the caller
is supposed to provide the functions more or less directly why not
have the caller create and own the irq chip? Is something in the way
of this? It looked like the platform version of this did the same API approach..

Jason