linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/io-pgtalbe-arm: Remove "iopte

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: <20201207102458.GB3825@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:24:58 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM SMMU DRIVERS" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com, Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/io-pgtalbe-arm: Remove "iopte_type(pte, l)" extra
 parameter "l"

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0800, Kunkun Jiang wrote:
> Knowing from the code, the macro "iopte_type(pte, l)" doesn't use the
> parameter "l" (level). So we'd better to remove it.
> 
> Fixes: e1d3c0fd701df(iommu: add ARM LPAE page table allocator)
> Signed-off-by: Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> index a7a9bc08dcd1..925ae2b713d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
>  /* IOPTE accessors */
>  #define iopte_deref(pte,d) __va(iopte_to_paddr(pte, d))
>  
> -#define iopte_type(pte,l)					\
> +#define iopte_type(pte)					\
>  	(((pte) >> ARM_LPAE_PTE_TYPE_SHIFT) & ARM_LPAE_PTE_TYPE_MASK)

Shouldn't we update all the users of the macro too?

Will