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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:36:08 +0800 From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com> Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.jiang@...el.com, ashok.raj@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com, dwmw@...zon.co.uk, x86@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, jgg@...lanox.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, maz@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] platform-msi: Add platform check for subdevice irq domain Hi Leon, On 2/8/21 4:21 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 12:56:44PM -0800, Megha Dey wrote: >> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> >> >> The pci_subdevice_msi_create_irq_domain() should fail if the underlying >> platform is not able to support IMS (Interrupt Message Storage). Otherwise, >> the isolation of interrupt is not guaranteed. >> >> For x86, IMS is only supported on bare metal for now. We could enable it >> in the virtualization environments in the future if interrupt HYPERCALL >> domain is supported or the hardware has the capability of interrupt >> isolation for subdevices. >> >> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk> >> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> >> Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com> >> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/87pn4nk7nn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/ >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/877dqrnzr3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/ >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/877dqqmc2h.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/ >> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/base/platform-msi.c | 8 +++++ >> include/linux/msi.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 83 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c >> index 3507f45..263ccf6 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c >> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ >> #include <linux/init.h> >> #include <linux/dmi.h> >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> +#include <linux/iommu.h> >> +#include <linux/msi.h> >> >> #include <asm/acpi.h> >> #include <asm/segment.h> >> @@ -724,3 +726,75 @@ struct pci_dev *pci_real_dma_dev(struct pci_dev *dev) >> return dev; >> } >> #endif >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVICE_MSI > > Sorry for my naive question, but I see it in all your patches in this series > and wonder why did you wrap everything with ifdefs?. The added code is only called when DEVICE_MSI is configured. > > All *.c code is wrapped with those ifdefs, which is hard to navigate and > unlikely to give any code/size optimization benefit if kernel is compiled > without CONFIG_DEVICE_MSI. The more common approach is to put those > ifdef in the public header files and leave to the compiler to drop not > called functions. Yes. This looks better. > > Thanks > Best regards, baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists