linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault

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: <BN9PR11MB5276214F6B8D4E4529C559EE8C09A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 03:56:24 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
CC:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu: Make dev->fault_param static

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:17 AM
> 
> On 2023/8/3 16:08, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 1:49 PM
> >>
> >>
> >>   	mutex_init(&param->lock);
> >> +	param->fault_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param->fault_param),
> >> GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!param->fault_param) {
> >> +		kfree(param);
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +	}
> >> +	mutex_init(&param->fault_param->lock);
> >> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&param->fault_param->faults);
> >
> > let's also move 'partial' from struct iopf_device_param into struct
> > iommu_fault_param. That logic is not specific to sva.
> >
> > meanwhile probably iopf_device_param can be renamed to
> > iopf_sva_param since all the remaining fields are only used by
> > the sva handler.
> >
> > current naming (iommu_fault_param vs. iopf_device_param) is a
> > bit confusing when reading related code.
> 
> My understanding is that iommu_fault_param is for all kinds of iommu
> faults. Currently they probably include recoverable IO page faults or
> unrecoverable DMA faults.
> 
> While, iopf_device_param is for the recoverable IO page faults. I agree
> that this naming is not specific and even confusing. Perhaps renaming it
> to something like iommu_iopf_param?
> 

or just iopf_param...