| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <A2975661238FB949B60364EF0F2C25743A179AB4@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:35:00 +0000
From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC: "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 03/12] vfio_pci: refine vfio_pci_driver reference in
vfio_pci.c
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@...hat.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 6:48 AM
> To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/12] vfio_pci: refine vfio_pci_driver reference in vfio_pci.c
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:01:40 +0800
> Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch replaces the vfio_pci_driver reference in vfio_pci.c with
> > pci_dev_driver(vdev->pdev) which is more helpful to make the functions
> > be generic to module types.
> >
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > index 009d2df..9140f5e5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > @@ -1463,24 +1463,25 @@ static void vfio_pci_reflck_get(struct vfio_pci_reflck
> *reflck)
> >
> > static int vfio_pci_reflck_find(struct pci_dev *pdev, void *data)
> > {
> > - struct vfio_pci_reflck **preflck = data;
> > + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = data;
> > + struct vfio_pci_reflck **preflck = &vdev->reflck;
> > struct vfio_device *device;
> > - struct vfio_pci_device *vdev;
> > + struct vfio_pci_device *tmp;
> >
> > device = vfio_device_get_from_dev(&pdev->dev);
> > if (!device)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != &vfio_pci_driver) {
> > + if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != pci_dev_driver(vdev->pdev)) {
> > vfio_device_put(device);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - vdev = vfio_device_data(device);
> > + tmp = vfio_device_data(device);
> >
> > - if (vdev->reflck) {
> > - vfio_pci_reflck_get(vdev->reflck);
> > - *preflck = vdev->reflck;
> > + if (tmp->reflck) {
> > + vfio_pci_reflck_get(tmp->reflck);
> > + *preflck = tmp->reflck;
>
> Seems we can do away with preflck entirely with this refactor, this
> simply becomes vdev->reflck = tmp->reflck. Thanks,
yes, it is. Will modify it.
> Alex
Thanks,
Yi Liu
> > vfio_device_put(device);
> > return 1;
> > }
> > @@ -1497,7 +1498,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_reflck_attach(struct vfio_pci_device
> *vdev)
> >
> > if (pci_is_root_bus(vdev->pdev->bus) ||
> > vfio_pci_for_each_slot_or_bus(vdev->pdev, vfio_pci_reflck_find,
> > - &vdev->reflck, slot) <= 0)
> > + vdev, slot) <= 0)
> > vdev->reflck = vfio_pci_reflck_alloc();
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&reflck_lock);
> > @@ -1522,6 +1523,7 @@ static void vfio_pci_reflck_put(struct vfio_pci_reflck
> *reflck)
> >
> > struct vfio_devices {
> > struct vfio_device **devices;
> > + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev;
> > int cur_index;
> > int max_index;
> > };
> > @@ -1530,7 +1532,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_unused_devs(struct pci_dev
> *pdev, void *data)
> > {
> > struct vfio_devices *devs = data;
> > struct vfio_device *device;
> > - struct vfio_pci_device *vdev;
> > + struct vfio_pci_device *tmp;
> >
> > if (devs->cur_index == devs->max_index)
> > return -ENOSPC;
> > @@ -1539,15 +1541,15 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_unused_devs(struct pci_dev
> *pdev, void *data)
> > if (!device)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != &vfio_pci_driver) {
> > + if (pci_dev_driver(pdev) != pci_dev_driver(devs->vdev->pdev)) {
> > vfio_device_put(device);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> >
> > - vdev = vfio_device_data(device);
> > + tmp = vfio_device_data(device);
> >
> > /* Fault if the device is not unused */
> > - if (vdev->refcnt) {
> > + if (tmp->refcnt) {
> > vfio_device_put(device);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> > @@ -1574,7 +1576,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_get_unused_devs(struct pci_dev
> *pdev, void *data)
> > */
> > static void vfio_pci_try_bus_reset(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
> > {
> > - struct vfio_devices devs = { .cur_index = 0 };
> > + struct vfio_devices devs = { .vdev = vdev, .cur_index = 0 };
> > int i = 0, ret = -EINVAL;
> > bool slot = false;
> > struct vfio_pci_device *tmp;
> > @@ -1637,7 +1639,7 @@ static void __exit vfio_pci_cleanup(void)
> > vfio_pci_uninit_perm_bits();
> > }
> >
> > -static void __init vfio_pci_fill_ids(char *ids)
> > +static void __init vfio_pci_fill_ids(char *ids, struct pci_driver *driver)
> > {
> > char *p, *id;
> > int rc;
> > @@ -1665,7 +1667,7 @@ static void __init vfio_pci_fill_ids(char *ids)
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > - rc = pci_add_dynid(&vfio_pci_driver, vendor, device,
> > + rc = pci_add_dynid(driver, vendor, device,
> > subvendor, subdevice, class, class_mask, 0);
> > if (rc)
> > pr_warn("failed to add dynamic id [%04x:%04x[%04x:%04x]]
> class %#08x/%08x (%d)\n",
> > @@ -1692,7 +1694,7 @@ static int __init vfio_pci_init(void)
> > if (ret)
> > goto out_driver;
> >
> > - vfio_pci_fill_ids(ids);
> > + vfio_pci_fill_ids(ids, &vfio_pci_driver);
> >
> > return 0;
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists