linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Reorganize iommu_table

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: <ff03c08047e0cdc79471d7bc35e48fa70efc1215.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 16:02:00 -0300
From:   Leonardo Brás <leobras.c@...il.com>
To:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/11] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Reorganize
 iommu_table_setparms*() with new helper

On Wed, 2021-07-14 at 18:32 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/07/2021 14:47, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> > Hello Alexey,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 19:26 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +                                        unsigned long liobn,
> > > > > unsigned long win_addr,
> > > > > +                                        unsigned long
> > > > > window_size,
> > > > > unsigned long page_shift,
> > > > > +                                        unsigned long base,
> > > > > struct
> > > > > iommu_table_ops *table_ops)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > iommu_table_setparms() rather than passing 0 around.
> > > > 
> > > > The same comment about "liobn" - set it in
> > > > iommu_table_setparms_lpar().
> > > > The reviewer will see what field atters in what situation imho.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The idea here was to keep all tbl parameters setting in
> > > _iommu_table_setparms (or iommu_table_setparms_common).
> > > 
> > > I understand the idea that each one of those is optional in the
> > > other
> > > case, but should we keep whatever value is present in the other
> > > variable (not zeroing the other variable), or do someting like:
> > > 
> > > tbl->it_index = 0;
> > > tbl->it_base = basep;
> > > (in iommu_table_setparms)
> > > 
> > > tbl->it_index = liobn;
> > > tbl->it_base = 0;
> > > (in iommu_table_setparms_lpar)
> > > 
> > 
> > This one is supposed to be a question, but I missed the question
> > mark.
> > Sorry about that.
> 
> Ah ok :)
> 
> > I would like to get your opinion in this :)
> 
> Besides making the "base" parameter a pointer, I really do not have 
> strong preference, just make it not hurting eyes of a reader, that's
> all :)

Ok, done :)

> imho in general, rather than answering 5 weeks later, it is more 
> productive to address whatever comments were made, add comments (in
> the 
> code or commit logs) why you are sticking to your initial approach, 
> rebase and repost the whole thing. Thanks,

Thanks for the tip, and for the reviewing :)

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras