linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu/vt-d: Cleanup intel_context_flush

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: <BN9PR11MB527652E646F7437CA7E4AFE58CC22@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 05:17:27 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, "Will
 Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, "Jason
 Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@...dia.com>, Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
	Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
	<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 06/12] iommu/vt-d: Cleanup
 intel_context_flush_present()

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 11:58 AM
> 
> On 2/25/25 15:43, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:16 PM
> >>
> >> The intel_context_flush_present() is called in places where either the
> >> scalable mode is disabled, or scalable mode is enabled but all PASID
> >> entries are known to be non-present. In these cases, the flush_domains
> >> path within intel_context_flush_present() will never execute. This dead
> >> code is therefore removed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> > usually a suffix "_present()" indicates that the helper can be called
> > on an object which is currently in-use, which is obviously not the
> > case here.
> >
> > To avoid confusion probably just call it intel_context_flush() or
> > intel_context_flush_no_user() is clearer.
> 
> How about intel_context_flush_no_pasid()?

yes