linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iommu: Drop sw_msi from iommu

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: <Z+HcrI/rEoU9vNT6@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 19:29:00 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, kevin.tian@...el.com,
	robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iommu: Drop sw_msi from iommu_domain

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 02:38:33PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:

> My feeling is that we should just let all other cases return 0
> like the previous function did, as this seems to be commonly on
> the IRQ allocation path that shouldn't fail like this. E.g. if
> we fail a blocked domain, would it retry switching domains?

I don't know, I think if the interrupt driver is calling this function
it knows the MSI is translated by the iommu and if the iommu is set to
something like blocked then it really should fail rather than silently
not work. Same for a paging domain without any kind of sw_msi route.

So, I'm feeling like we should check for identity and still fail the
other cases?

Can you send another version of the series with this and Arnd's two
fixes integrated?

Thanks,
Jason