linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 1/3] vfio/nvgrace-gpu: Read dvsec register to determine need for uncached resmem

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: <BN9PR11MB5276B46605C1C15EF39808098CE72@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:09:03 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "ankita@...dia.com" <ankita@...dia.com>, "jgg@...dia.com"
	<jgg@...dia.com>, "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	"yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, "zhiw@...dia.com" <zhiw@...dia.com>
CC: "aniketa@...dia.com" <aniketa@...dia.com>, "cjia@...dia.com"
	<cjia@...dia.com>, "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
	"targupta@...dia.com" <targupta@...dia.com>, "Sethi, Vikram"
	<vsethi@...dia.com>, "Currid, Andy" <acurrid@...dia.com>,
	"apopple@...dia.com" <apopple@...dia.com>, "jhubbard@...dia.com"
	<jhubbard@...dia.com>, "danw@...dia.com" <danw@...dia.com>,
	"anuaggarwal@...dia.com" <anuaggarwal@...dia.com>, "mochs@...dia.com"
	<mochs@...dia.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/3] vfio/nvgrace-gpu: Read dvsec register to determine
 need for uncached resmem

> From: ankita@...dia.com <ankita@...dia.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2025 7:37 AM
> 
> @@ -46,6 +51,7 @@ struct nvgrace_gpu_pci_core_device {
>  	struct mem_region resmem;
>  	/* Lock to control device memory kernel mapping */
>  	struct mutex remap_lock;
> +	bool has_mig_hw_bug_fix;

Is 'has_mig_hw_bug" clearer given GB+ hardware should all inherit
the fix anyway?

> 
>  	if (ops == &nvgrace_gpu_pci_ops) {
> +		nvdev->has_mig_hw_bug_fix =
> nvgrace_gpu_has_mig_hw_bug_fix(pdev);
> +

Move it into nvgrace_gpu_init_nvdev_struct() which has plenty
of information to help understand that line.