linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/23] iommufd/driver: Add iommufd_struct_destroy to revert iommufd_viommu

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: <aCYcZmDEcWZ7Plw6@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 09:55:02 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <corbet@....net>, <will@...nel.org>,
	<bagasdotme@...il.com>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<thierry.reding@...il.com>, <vdumpa@...dia.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	<shuah@...nel.org>, <jsnitsel@...hat.com>, <nathan@...nel.org>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, <mshavit@...gle.com>,
	<praan@...gle.com>, <zhangzekun11@...wei.com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<mochs@...dia.com>, <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>, <vasant.hegde@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/23] iommufd/driver: Add iommufd_struct_destroy to
 revert iommufd_viommu_alloc

On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 09:49:11AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 12:21:37PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > Then when the command is over the core code either aborts or finalizes
> > > the objects in the iommufd_ucmd. This way you don't have to expose
> > > abort and related to drivers.
> > 
> > I see! Do you want this to apply to the all objects or just driver
> > allocated ones?
> 
> I would do all the ones that can work that way easily
> 
> I think it would just be one patch, replace this patch with that one.
> 
> > We would need a bigger preparatory series to roll out that to all
> > the allocators, and need to be careful at the existing abort() that
> > intertwines with other steps like an unlock().
> 
> Those cases with special locking couldn't use it.

OK. I will add a patch in v5, replacing this one.

Thanks
Nicolin