linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu: Clean up release

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]

Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 19:57:12 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, joro@...tes.org,
        will@...nel.org
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu: Clean up release_device checks

On 2022/6/22 15:17, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-06-22 02:36, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2022/6/21 23:14, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> Since .release_device is now called through per-device ops, any call
>>> which gets as far as a driver definitely*is*  for that driver, for a
>>> device which has successfully passed .probe_device, so all the checks to
>>> that effect are now redundant and can be removed. In the same vein we
>>> can also skip freeing fwspecs which are now managed by core code.
>>
>> Does this depend on any other series? I didn't see iommu_fwspec_free()
>> called in the core code. Or I missed anything?
> 
> dev_iommu_free() cleans up param->fwspec directly (see b54240ad4943). 
> FWIW the plan is that iommu_fwspec_free() should eventually go away - of 
> the remaining uses after this, two are in fact similarly redundant 
> already, since there's also a dev_iommu_free() in the probe failure 
> path, and the other two should disappear in part 2 of fixing the bus 
> probing mess (wherein the of_xlate step gets pulled into 
> iommu_probe_device as well, and finally works correctly again).

Yes, it is. Thanks for the explanation.

Reviewed-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>

Best regards,
baolu