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: <Ya4EwWkvDpuvoEjF@8bytes.org>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:40:33 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     will@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        john.garry@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] iommu/amd: Simplify pagetable freeing

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 02:10:39PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> For reasons unclear, pagetable freeing is an effectively recursive
> method implemented via an elaborate system of templated functions that
> turns out to account for 25% of the object file size. Implementing it
> using regular straightforward recursion makes the code simpler, and
> seems like a good thing to do before we work on it further. As part of
> that, also fix the types to avoid all the needless casting back and
> forth which just gets in the way.

Nice cleanup! The stack of functions came from the fact that recursion
was pretty much discouraged in the kernel. But in this case it looks
well bounded and should be fine.

> +static struct page *free_pt_lvl(u64 *pt, struct page *freelist, int lvl)
> +{
> +	u64 *p;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < 512; ++i) {
> +		/* PTE present? */
> +		if (!IOMMU_PTE_PRESENT(pt[i]))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/* Large PTE? */
> +		if (PM_PTE_LEVEL(pt[i]) == 0 ||
> +		    PM_PTE_LEVEL(pt[i]) == 7)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		p = IOMMU_PTE_PAGE(pt[i]);
> +		if (lvl > 2)

I thinkt this function deserves a couple of comments. It took me a while
to make sense of the 'lvl > 2' comparision. I think it is right, but if
I have think again I'd appreciate a comment :)

Regards,

	Joerg

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ