linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] iommufd: Pass parent hwpt and user_data to iommufd_hw_pagetable

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:   Fri, 19 May 2023 12:09:16 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
        "yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        "lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
        "suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] iommufd: Pass parent hwpt and user_data to
 iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc()

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:06:20AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:

> > @@ -73,14 +77,22 @@ int iommufd_hw_pagetable_enforce_cc(struct
> > iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt)
> >   */
> >  struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *
> >  iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, struct
> > iommufd_ioas *ioas,
> > -                        struct iommufd_device *idev, bool
> > immediate_attach)
> > +                        struct iommufd_device *idev,
> > +                        struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *parent,
> > +                        union iommu_domain_user_data *user_data,
> > +                        bool immediate_attach)
> >  {
> >       const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(idev->dev);
> > +     struct iommu_domain *parent_domain = NULL;
> >       struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt;
> > +     bool type_unmanaged, type_nested;
> >       int rc;
> >
> >       lockdep_assert_held(&ioas->mutex);
> >
> > +     if ((user_data || parent) && !ops->domain_alloc_user)
> > +             return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
> 
> Do we allow specifying parent w/o user_data?

I don't think so. Perhaps we should do a double check:

+	if (!!user_data ^ !!parent)
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	if (user_data && !ops->domain_alloc_user)
+		return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);

> > @@ -99,6 +117,15 @@ iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx
> > *ictx, struct iommufd_ioas *ioas,
> >               goto out_abort;
> >       }
> >
> > +     /* It must be either NESTED or UNMANAGED, depending on
> > parent_domain */
> > +       type_nested = hwpt->domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED;
> > +       type_unmanaged = hwpt->domain->type ==
> > IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED;
> 
> no need of one-time used variables. Just put the conditions directly
> in WARN_ON.

It is to improve the readability. Otherwise, we'd have:

	if (WARN_ON((parent_domain &&
		     hwpt->domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED) ||
		    (!parent_domain &&
		     hwpt->domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED)))

> > +       if (WARN_ON((parent_domain && !type_nested) ||
> > +                   (!parent_domain && !type_unmanaged))) {
> > +             rc = -EINVAL;
> > +             goto out_abort;
> > +     }
> > +
> 
> probably just WARN_ON_ONCE() to mark that driver has problem?

Yea. I think we could do that.

Thanks
Nic