[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB75290CA351F72B3299CFB3B4C3DFA@DS0PR11MB7529.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 02:06:46 +0000
From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>
CC: "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>,
"Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
"Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 8/8] iommu/vt-d: Disallow read-only mappings to nest
parent domain
> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:18 PM
>
> On 2023/10/23 19:15, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> >> I would also prefer to introduce is_nested_parent_domain to the user
> >> domain allocation patch (patch 7/8). This field should be checked when
> >> allocating a nested user domain.
> > A ctually, no need. This should be a common check, so iommufd core already
> > has the check. So the parent should be a nest parent domain, otherwise already
> > returned in iommufd.
> >
> > + if (!parent->nest_parent)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> I know this will not cause errors in the code. But since you are
> introducing is_parent property in the vt-d driver. The integrity of the
> property should be ensured. In this way, it will make the code more
> readable and maintainable.
Ok, if consider it as a property, then it's fine. At first, I just want to
make it as a special flag for this errata. But we cannot predict if there
will be more nested parent special stuffs, then this flag is also needed.
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists