linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto: hisilicon/qm - defining the device isolation strategy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:07:41 +0800
From:   "yekai(A)" <yekai13@...wei.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC:     Kai Ye via Linux-accelerators 
        <linux-accelerators@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto: hisilicon/qm - defining the device
 isolation strategy



On 2022/6/16 21:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> ...
>
>>>
>>>> +	hw_err->tick_stamp = jiffies;
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(err, tmp, &qm->uacce_hw_errs, list) {
>>>
>>> These are ordered (I think). Could take advantage of that by
>>> maintaining count of elements in parallel to the list then walking
>>> list in right direction + stop when you reach last one to need
>>> deleting.
>>>
>>
>> thanks, The current list + jiffies solution seems more simple.
>
> If list always remains relatively short then that's probably fine.
>
>>>
>>>> +		if ((hw_err->tick_stamp - err->tick_stamp) / HZ >
>>>> +		    SECONDS_PER_HOUR) {
>>>> +			list_del(&err->list);
>>>> +			kfree(err);
>>>> +		} else {
>>>> +			count++;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	list_add(&hw_err->list, &qm->uacce_hw_errs);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (count >= isolate->hw_err_isolate_hz)
>>>> +		atomic_set(&isolate->is_isolate, 1);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +static int hisi_qm_isolate_strategy_write(struct uacce_device *uacce,
>>>> +						const char *buf)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct hisi_qm *qm = uacce->priv;
>>>> +	unsigned long val = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +#define MAX_ISOLATE_STRATEGY	65535
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (atomic_read(&qm->uacce_ref))
>>>> +		return -EBUSY;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* must be set by PF */
>>>> +	if (atomic_read(&qm->isolate_data.is_isolate) || uacce->is_vf)
>>>
>>> Why is the file visible on the vf?  Hide it or don't register it for vfs.
>> Because VF devices can be registered with UACCE. So this file node can
>> be visited on the vf. We're not sure if someone else's device is the
>> same as qm. So i configure it this way by driver. the 'isolate_strategy'
>> must be set by pf.
>>
>
> If possible have the uacce registration from the driver provide information
> on whether this applies to the VF.  Much better to have no file presented
> by the VF than one that always returns an error code.
>
> Jonathan
>
> .
>

Yes, I will provide some information here for VF.

thanks

Kai