[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB75290C3742DB3A7AD3BE6796C30CA@DS0PR11MB7529.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:02:35 +0000
From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.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>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.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 v4 07/12] iommufd: Add data structure for Intel VT-d
stage-1 cache invalidation
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 10:04 PM
>
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 01:04:57PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > Having the driver copy in a loop might be better
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate?
> >
> > I think Jason means the way in patch 09.
>
> Yeah, you can't reuse the stack buffer for an array, so patch 9 copies
> each element uniquely.
>
> This is more calls to copy_to_user, which has some cost
>
> But we avoid a memory allocation
Yes.
> Patch 9 should not abuse the user_data, cast it to the inv_info and
> just put req on the stack:
>
> struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate *inv_info = user_data;
> struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc req;
Sure. The way in patch 09 is a bit tricky. The above is better and clearer. 😊
> But I'm not sure about this entry_size logic, what happens if the
> entry_size is larger than the kernel supports? I think it should
> fail..
Yes. should fail. It should be failed in copy_struct_from_user() as I use
it to copy the struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc.
* -E2BIG: (@usize > @ksize) and there are non-zero trailing bytes in @src.
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists