linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 05/14] iommufd: Add IOMMUFD_OBJ_VEVENTQ and IOMMUFD_CMD_VEVENTQ

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: <Z7TOUWm6eQPaRdN/@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:15:45 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <corbet@....net>, <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>,
	<linux-doc@...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>,
	<ddutile@...hat.com>, <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/14] iommufd: Add IOMMUFD_OBJ_VEVENTQ and
 IOMMUFD_CMD_VEVENTQ_ALLOC

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:08:05PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:47:50AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +int iommufd_veventq_alloc(struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct iommu_veventq_alloc *cmd = ucmd->cmd;
> > > > +	struct iommufd_veventq *veventq;
> > > > +	struct iommufd_viommu *viommu;
> > > > +	int fdno;
> > > > +	int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (cmd->flags || cmd->type == IOMMU_VEVENTQ_TYPE_DEFAULT)
> > > > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +	if (!cmd->veventq_depth)
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> > > Check __reserved for 0 too
> > 
> > Kevin is suggesting a 32-bit flag field, so I think we can drop
> > the __reserved in that case.
> 
> Those are different structs?

Oops. Right. I will check the __reserved.

Thanks
Nicolin