linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu: Make iommu_sva_domain

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: Fri, 31 May 2024 11:39:52 +0530
From: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu: Make iommu_sva_domain_alloc() static



On 5/31/2024 6:29 AM, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 5/30/24 4:52 PM, Vasant Hegde wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 10:24 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> iommu_sva_domain_alloc() is only called in iommu-sva.c, hence make it
>>> static.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, iommu_sva_domain_alloc() should not return NULL anymore
>>> after commit <80af5a452024> ("iommu: Add ops->domain_alloc_sva()"), the
>>> removal of inline code avoids potential confusion.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 80af5a452024 ("iommu: Add ops->domain_alloc_sva()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   include/linux/iommu.h     | 8 --------
>>>   drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c | 6 ++++--
>>>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h
>>> index 7bc8dff7cf6d..5cdd3d41b87b 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
>>> @@ -1527,8 +1527,6 @@ struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device
>>> *dev,
>>>                       struct mm_struct *mm);
>>>   void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>>>   u32 iommu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>>> -struct iommu_domain *iommu_sva_domain_alloc(struct device *dev,
>>> -                        struct mm_struct *mm);
>>>   #else
>>>   static inline struct iommu_sva *
>>>   iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> @@ -1553,12 +1551,6 @@ static inline u32 mm_get_enqcmd_pasid(struct mm_struct
>>> *mm)
>>>   }
>>>     static inline void mm_pasid_drop(struct mm_struct *mm) {}
>>> -
>>> -static inline struct iommu_domain *
>>> -iommu_sva_domain_alloc(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> -{
>>> -    return NULL;
>>> -}
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA */
>>>     #ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_IOPF
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
>>> index 18a35e798b72..25e581299226 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
>>> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
>>>   #include "iommu-priv.h"
>>>     static DEFINE_MUTEX(iommu_sva_lock);
>>> +static struct iommu_domain *iommu_sva_domain_alloc(struct device *dev,
>>> +                           struct mm_struct *mm);
>> If we move move iommu_sva_domain_alloc() before iommu_sva_bind_device() then we
>> can avoid this forward declaration.
> 
> Yeah, but that means moving 144 lines of code. That's why I went with
> this approach

Ah right. I didn't realized we have 'iopf_handler' in iommu_sva_domain_alloc().

-Vasant