linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Introduce a replace API for device pasid

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: <20240318165247.GD5825@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:52:47 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Cc: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"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>,
	"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Introduce a replace API for device pasid

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:

> yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
> and pasid_array update is under the group->lock, so update it should be
> fine to adjust the order to update pasid_array after set_dev_pasid returns.

Yes, it makes some sense

But, also I would like it very much if we just have the core pass in
the actual old domain as a an addition function argument.

I think we have some small mistakes in multi-device group error
unwinding for remove because the global xarray can't isn't actually
going to be correct in all scenarios.

Jason