linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add struct arm_smmu

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: <Zr2Re6vgO3SnnEUB@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:26:19 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <vdumpa@...dia.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add struct arm_smmu_impl

Hi Jason,

I've addressed all the comments here. Two additional replies below.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 06:52:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> /*
>  * Probe all the compiled in implementations. Each one checks to see if it
>  * matches this HW and if so returns a devm_krealloc'd arm_smmu_device which
>  * replaces the callers. Otherwise the original is returned or ERR_PTR.
>  *
>  */
> static struct arm_smmu_device *arm_smmu_probe_impl(struct arm_smmu_device *orig_smmu)
> {
> 	struct arm_smmu_device *new_smmu;
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	new_smmu = tegra241_cmdqv_acpi_dsdt_probe(orig_smmu);
> 	if (new_smmu != ERR_PTR(-ENODEV))
> 		goto out_new_impl;
> 	return orig_smmu;
> 
> out_new_impl:
> 	if (IS_ERR(new_smmu))
> 		return new_smmu;
> 
> 	/* FIXME: check is this ordering OK during remove? */

I am not able to test-verify this. At least CMDQV seems to be OK
to remove after SMMU.


> > @@ -4560,6 +4602,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >  
> > +	arm_smmu_impl_remove(smmu);
> 
> Can't call this if devm has been used to set it up, and this would be
> in the wrong order anyhow. Just remove it.. I guess the devm was put
> for this to avoid adding goto error unwind to probe?

I got that from Will's patch, and I think so, as it does simplify
the unwind routine.

Thanks!
Nicolin