[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5276921496E7EBEC3BAC6EC88C98A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 06:11:31 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "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>
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>, "joao.m.martins@...cle.com"
<joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "j.granados@...sung.com" <j.granados@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 9/9] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain
> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 12:52 PM
> >> +
> >> + if (!IS_ALIGNED(inv_entry.addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE) ||
> >> + ((inv_entry.npages == U64_MAX) && inv_entry.addr)) {
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > why is [non-zero-addr, U64_MAX] an error? Is it explicitly stated to
> > be not supported by underlying helpers?
>
> no such limitation by underlying helpers. But in such case, the
> addr+npages*PAGE_SIZE would exceed U64_MAX, this seems a bit
> strange. But I'm fine to relax the check since the underlying helper
> only checks npages when determining paid-selective or not.
>
I overlooked npages as end. let's keep the check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists