linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] iommu/vt-d: Fix PASID cache flush

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: <38c0f6f0-b751-6b23-2292-5f08bdfff5c9@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:19:03 +0100
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] iommu/vt-d: Fix PASID cache flush

Hi Jacob,
On 11/18/19 8:42 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Use the correct invalidation descriptor type and granularity.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> Acked-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c
> index 3cb569e76642..ee6ea1bbd917 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c
> @@ -365,7 +365,8 @@ pasid_cache_invalidation_with_pasid(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
>  {
>  	struct qi_desc desc;
>  
> -	desc.qw0 = QI_PC_DID(did) | QI_PC_PASID_SEL | QI_PC_PASID(pasid);
> +	desc.qw0 = QI_PC_DID(did) | QI_PC_GRAN(QI_PC_PASID_SEL) |
> +		QI_PC_PASID(pasid) | QI_PC_TYPE;
Hum I am confused

#define QI_PC_PASID_SEL         (QI_PC_TYPE | QI_PC_GRAN(1))

So the original looks correct to me?

Thanks

Eric



>  	desc.qw1 = 0;
>  	desc.qw2 = 0;
>  	desc.qw3 = 0;
>