linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 4/5] iommu/vt-d: pass pdev parameter for qi_check

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: <b3af83cf-b6c7-4543-b793-f2a9547ca9d2@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:30:39 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
 "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
 "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>, "lukas@...ner.de" <lukas@...ner.de>,
 "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
 "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 4/5] iommu/vt-d: pass pdev parameter for
 qi_check_fault() and refactor callers


On 1/29/2024 4:58 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:49 AM
>>
>> to check state of ATS capable pci device in qi_check_fault() for surprise
>> removal case, we need to pass the target pci device of ATS invalidation
>> request to qi_check_fault(). if pdev is valid, means current request is for
>> ATS invalidation, vice vesa.
>>
>> no function change.
> qi_submit_sync() is used for all kinds of iotlb/cache/devtlb invalidations.
> it's a bit weird to see a device pointer (even being NULL) in places where
> a device doesn't even matter.
>
> having a new qi_submit_sync_devtlb() wrapper sounds cleaner to me,
> with an internal __qi_submit_sync() helper to accept a device pointer.
>
> qi_submit_sync() calls __qi_submit_sync() with a null device pointer then
> non-devtlb paths are intact.

Make sense !

That way, could keep about 10 qi_submit_sync() calling intact, while

only 2-3 qi_submit_sync_devtlb() wrapper calling needed.

Thanks,

Ethan