linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFCv2 06/13] iommufd: Make attach

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z43lMrJDdFEDaArW@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:54:58 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
CC: <jgg@...dia.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
	<kevin.tian@...el.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <maz@...nel.org>,
	<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, <joro@...tes.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, <eric.auger@...hat.com>, <yebin10@...wei.com>,
	<apatel@...tanamicro.com>, <shivamurthy.shastri@...utronix.de>,
	<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	<nipun.gupta@....com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	<patches@...ts.linux.dev>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, <mdf@...nel.org>,
	<mshavit@...gle.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	<smostafa@...gle.com>, <ddutile@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2 06/13] iommufd: Make attach_handle generic

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 06:40:57PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> On 2025/1/19 04:32, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 04:23:22PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > > On 2025/1/11 11:32, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +static int iommufd_hwpt_attach_device(struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt,
> > > > +				      struct iommufd_device *idev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct iommufd_attach_handle *handle;
> > > > +	int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (hwpt->fault) {
> > > > +		rc = iommufd_fault_domain_attach_dev(hwpt, idev, true);
> > > > +		if (rc)
> > > > +			return rc;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	handle = kzalloc(sizeof(*handle), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +	if (!handle) {
> > > > +		rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > > +		goto out_fault_detach;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	handle->idev = idev;
> > > > +	rc = iommu_attach_group_handle(hwpt->domain, idev->igroup->group,
> > > > +				       &handle->handle);
> > > > +	if (rc)
> > > > +		goto out_free_handle;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +out_free_handle:
> > > > +	kfree(handle);
> > > > +	handle = NULL;
> > > > +out_fault_detach:
> > > > +	if (hwpt->fault)
> > > > +		iommufd_fault_domain_detach_dev(hwpt, idev, handle, true);
> > > > +	return rc;
> > > > +}
> > 
> > Here the revert path passes in a handle=NULL..
> 
> aha. got it. Perhaps we can allocate handle first. In the below thread, it
> is possible that a failed domain may have pending PRIs, it would require
> the caller to call the auto response. Although, we are likely to swap the
> order, but it is nice to have for the caller to do it.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/f685daca-081a-4ede-b1e1-559009fa9ebc@intel.com/

Hmm, I don't really see a point in letting the detach flow to
scan the two lists in hwpt->fault against a zero-ed handle...
which feels like a waste of CPU cycles?

And I am not sure how that xa_insert part is realted?

Thanks
Nic