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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:50:30 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <>
To:     Alex Williamson <>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vfio/type1: Simplify bus_type determination

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:00:44PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:

> > >> +struct vfio_device *vfio_device_get_from_iommu(struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	struct vfio_group *group = vfio_group_get_from_iommu(iommu_group);
> > >> +	struct vfio_device *device;  
> > > 
> > > Check group for NULL.  
> > 
> > OK - FWIW in context this should only ever make sense to call with an 
> > iommu_group which has already been derived from a vfio_group, and I did 
> > initially consider a check with a WARN_ON(), but then decided that the 
> > unguarded dereference would be a sufficiently strong message. No problem 
> > with bringing that back to make it more defensive if that's what you prefer.
> A while down the road, that's a bit too much implicit knowledge of the
> intent and single purpose of this function just to simply avoid a test.

I think we should just pass the 'struct vfio_group *' into the
attach_group op and have this API take that type in and forget the

At this point there is little justification for
vfio_group_get_from_iommu() existing at all, it should be folded into
the one use in vfio_group_find_or_alloc() and the locking widened so
we don't have the unlock/alloc/lock race that requires it to be called

> I'd lean towards Kevin's idea that we could store bus_type on the
> vfio_group and pass that to type1, with the same assumptions we're
> making in the commit log that it's consistent, but that doesn't get us
> closer to the long term plan of dropping the bus_type interfaces

Right, the point is to get a representative struct device here to use.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists