linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

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: <CAPcyv4jyojkRqkXPK=ZgMfUATVNUf71GZsgQuarygz4QEM1o-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:02:11 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:51 PM David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:
>
> > On 21-01-30 15:51:49, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static int cxl_mem_setup_mailbox(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const int cap = cxl_read_mbox_reg32(cxlm, CXLDEV_MB_CAPS_OFFSET);
> > > > +
> > > > + cxlm->mbox.payload_size =
> > > > +         1 << CXL_GET_FIELD(cap, CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* 8.2.8.4.3 */
> > > > + if (cxlm->mbox.payload_size < 256) {
> > > > +         dev_err(&cxlm->pdev->dev, "Mailbox is too small (%zub)",
> > > > +                 cxlm->mbox.payload_size);
> > > > +         return -ENXIO;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Any reason not to check cxlm->mbox.payload_size > (1 << 20) as well and
> > > return ENXIO if true?
> >
> > If some crazy vendor wanted to ship a mailbox larger than 1M, why should the
> > driver not allow it?
> >
>
> Because the spec disallows it :)

Unless it causes an operational failure in practice I'd go with the
Robustness Principle and be liberal in accepting hardware geometries.