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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 06:26:39 +0000 From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> CC: "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>, "lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>, "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, "yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>, "Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>, "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>, "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>, "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com> Subject: RE: [RFC 11/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_IOASID_ALLOC/FREE > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:32 PM > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 12:51:38PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:45 AM > > > > > [...] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c > > > b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c > > > > index 641f199f2d41..4839f128b24a 100644 > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > > > > struct iommufd_ctx { > > > > refcount_t refs; > > > > struct mutex lock; > > > > + struct xarray ioasid_xa; /* xarray of ioasids */ > > > > struct xarray device_xa; /* xarray of bound devices */ > > > > }; > > > > > > > > @@ -42,6 +43,16 @@ struct iommufd_device { > > > > u64 dev_cookie; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +/* Represent an I/O address space */ > > > > +struct iommufd_ioas { > > > > + int ioasid; > > > > > > xarray id's should consistently be u32s everywhere. > > > > sure. just one more check, this id is supposed to be returned to > > userspace as the return value of ioctl(IOASID_ALLOC). That's why > > I chose to use "int" as its prototype to make it aligned with the > > return type of ioctl(). Based on this, do you think it's still better > > to use "u32" here? > > I suggest not using the return code from ioctl to exchange data.. The > rest of the uAPI uses an in/out struct, everything should do > that consistently. got it. Thanks, Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists