linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU

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: <20241029155935.GV6956@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:59:35 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org,
	suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, eric.auger@...hat.com,
	jean-philippe@...aro.org, mdf@...nel.org, mshavit@...gle.com,
	shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, smostafa@...gle.com,
	yi.l.liu@...el.com, aik@....com, zhangfei.gao@...aro.org,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_ALLOC ioctl

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 08:46:40AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:36:24PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 11:54:36AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 04:49:44PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +void iommufd_viommu_destroy(struct iommufd_object *obj)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct iommufd_viommu *viommu =
> > > > +		container_of(obj, struct iommufd_viommu, obj);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (viommu->ops && viommu->ops->free)
> > > > +		viommu->ops->free(viommu);
> > > 
> > > Ops can't be null and free can't be null, that would mean there is a
> > > memory leak.
> > 
> > Actually, it is just named wrong, it should be called destroy like
> > this op, it doesn't free any memory..
> 
> Well, it frees if driver allocated something in its top structure.
> Yet, "destroy" does sound less confusing. Let's rename it, assuming
> it can still remain to be optional as we have here.

Yes, optional is right, I was confused by the name. The core code uses
destroy so I'd stick with that.

Jason