linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx

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:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:26:34 +0800
From:   Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org,
        robin.murphy@....com, jgg@...dia.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx_desc

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 4:22 AM Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> There are a couple of places calling this helper but they don't
> check the return code. Not sure if they should check too and do
> a fallback like this: if so, this fallback can be squashed into
> the helper; otherwise, this should be fine. Anyway, if there is
> a need of change for those, it would need another patch I think.

Yeah noticed that too; I think those other calls are technically OK
because the call can't fail when writing to a CD entry that was
previously written (it can only fail on allocation of a leaf table).
It's also not obvious how those callers could gracefully handle this.
I'd prefer keeping this commit as close to the existing behavior as
possible.