linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] iommufd/device: Move sw_msi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z6qLB3jV45zxPdZh@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:25:59 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <maz@...nel.org>,
	<joro@...tes.org>, <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
	<shuah@...nel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	<eric.auger@...hat.com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
	<yury.norov@...il.com>, <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/13] iommufd/device: Move sw_msi_start from igroup
 to idev

On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:41:52PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 01:02:41AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > @@ -433,8 +433,8 @@ static int iommufd_group_setup_msi(struct iommufd_group *igroup,
> >  	list_for_each_entry(cur, &ictx->sw_msi_list, sw_msi_item) {
> >  		int rc;
> >  
> > -		if (cur->sw_msi_start != igroup->sw_msi_start ||
> > -		    !test_bit(cur->id, igroup->required_sw_msi.bitmap))
> > +		if (cur->sw_msi_start != idev->sw_msi_start ||
> > +		    !test_bit(cur->id, idev->igroup->required_sw_msi.bitmap))
> >  			continue;
> 
> So we end up creating seperate sw_msi_list items with unique IDs for
> every sw_msi_start?
> 
> That indeed might work well, I will try to check it and think about
> this harder.

The sw_msi_list is still per-ictx, so there won't be items/ids
that overlap with their sw_msi windows, right?

Then, the per-HWPT bitmap could still protect the iommu_map(),
as the design wanted to? No?

Nicolin