linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent

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: <8735ahmv2l.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:58:42 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>,
        Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent_ops

On Wed, Nov 16 2022 at 14:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:58:14PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + * This is the most complex problem of per device MSI domains and the
>> + * underlying interrupt domain hierarchy:
>> + *
>> + * The device domain to be initialized requests the broadest feature set
>> + * possible and the underlying domain hierarchy puts restrictions on it.
>> + *
>> + * That's working perfectly fine for a strict parent->device model, but it
>> + * falls apart with a root_parent->real_parent->device chain because the
>
> This language hurt my brain :)

IKR

>> +bool msi_parent_init_dev_msi_info(struct device *dev, struct irq_domain *domain,
>> +				  struct irq_domain *real_parent, struct msi_domain_info *info)
>
> 'real_parent' is global IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_PARENT of the dev for
> which we are constructing a msi_domain_info to create a child aka
> IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_DEVICE?
>
> 'domain' is the current step in the hierarchy as we walk up the ops
> pointers?

Yes.

> Maybe:
>
> @child_info: The MSI domain info of the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_DEVICE
>              domain to be created
> @parent_domain: The IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_PARENT domain for the child to
>                 be created
> @domain: The domain in the hierarchy this op is being called on

Definitely better.

> And perhaps it would be a bit clearer to put the parent_domain inside
> the msi_domain_info, which is basically acting as an argument bundle
> for a future allocation call?

Maybe. Let me try.