linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] iommu/amd: fix a warning in increase_address

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191016225859.j3jq6pt73mn56chn@cantor>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:58:59 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, jroedel@...e.de, don.brace@...rosemi.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, esc.storagedev@...rosemi.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] iommu/amd: fix a warning in increase_address_space

On Wed Oct 16 19, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>On Wed Oct 16 19, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>BTW, Joerg, this line from the commit "iommu/amd: Remove domain->updated" looks
>>suspicious. Not sure what the purpose of it.
>>
>>*updated = increase_address_space(domain, gfp) || *updated;
>>
>
>Looking at it again I think that isn't an issue really, it would just
>not lose updated being set in a previous loop iteration, but now
>I'm wondering about the loop itself. In the cases where it would return
>false, how does the evaluation of the condition for the while loop
>change?
>

I guess the mode level 6 check is really for other potential callers
increase_address_space, none exist at the moment, and the condition
of the while loop in alloc_pte should fail if the mode level is 6.