linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 18/19] PCI/MSI: Provide a new set of mask and unmask functions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878s1atpjz.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Mon, 09 Aug 2021 20:56:32 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 18/19] PCI/MSI: Provide a new set of mask and unmask
 functions

On Fri, Aug 06 2021 at 15:39, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:51:57 +0100,
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> +static void __pci_msi_mask_desc(struct msi_desc *desc, u32 mask)
>> +{
>> +	if (pci_msi_ignore_mask || desc->msi_attrib.is_virtual)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	if (desc->msi_attrib.is_msix)
>> +		pci_msix_mask(desc);
>> +	else if (!desc->msi_attrib.maskbit)
>
> This negation is preventing one of my boxes from working correctly (no
> idea why the i350 driver refuses to use MSI-X and sticks to a single
> MSI, but hey, that's another story), as the device supports MSI
> masking, and we definitely don't try to mask/unmask in this case...
>
> Dropping the '!' here and on the unmask path fixes it for me.

Duh. I'm a moron. Of course this needs to check maskbit if it wants to
mask. Sigh.