linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] iommu/riscv: Device directory management.

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]

Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:57:31 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Tomasz Jeznach <tjeznach@...osinc.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
	Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
	Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>,
	Sebastien Boeuf <seb@...osinc.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...osinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] iommu/riscv: Device directory management.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:01:55PM -0700, Tomasz Jeznach wrote:
> Introduce device context allocation and device directory tree
> management including capabilities discovery sequence, as described
> in Chapter 2.1 of the RISC-V IOMMU Architecture Specification.
> 
> Device directory mode will be auto detected using DDTP WARL property,
> using highest mode supported by the driver and hardware. If none
> supported can be configured, driver will fall back to global pass-through.
> 
> First level DDTP page can be located in I/O (detected using DDTP WARL)
> and system memory.
> 
> Only simple identity and release (blocking) protection domains are
> supported by this implementation.

Why rename the concept? We call it a BLOCKING domain, just use that
name please.

> +static int riscv_iommu_attach_release_domain(struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain,
> +					     struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct riscv_iommu_device *iommu = dev_to_iommu(dev);
> +
> +	if (iommu->ddt_mode > RISCV_IOMMU_DDTP_MODE_BARE)
> +		riscv_iommu_iodir_update(iommu, dev, RISCV_IOMMU_FSC_BARE, 0);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct iommu_domain riscv_iommu_release_domain = {
> +	.type = IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED,
> +	.ops = &(const struct iommu_domain_ops) {
> +		.attach_dev = riscv_iommu_attach_release_domain,
> +	}
> +};

'riscv_iommu_release_domain' doesn't make sense..

Jason