linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/29] iommufd/viommu: Introduce IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW

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: <aDnd0i4OViUZ9uIX@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 09:33:22 -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>,
	<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/29] iommufd/viommu: Introduce IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW_QUEUE
 and its related struct

On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 01:07:53PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 08:21:30PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> >  struct iommufd_viommu_ops {
> > +	u32 flags;
> >  	void (*destroy)(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu);
> >  	struct iommu_domain *(*alloc_domain_nested)(
> >  		struct iommufd_viommu *viommu, u32 flags,
> > @@ -171,6 +200,10 @@ struct iommufd_viommu_ops {
> >  						 struct device *dev,
> >  						 u64 virt_id);
> >  	void (*vdevice_destroy)(struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev);
> > +	struct iommufd_hw_queue *(*hw_queue_alloc)(
> > +		struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd, struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
> > +		unsigned int type, u32 index, u64 base_addr, size_t length);
> 
> I think it would better to have two function pointers here than the flags:
> 
>  +	struct iommufd_hw_queue *(*hw_queue_alloc)(
>  +		struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd, struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
>  +		unsigned int type, u32 index, u64 s2_iova, size_t length);
> 
> 
>  +	struct iommufd_hw_queue *(*hw_queue_alloc_phys)(
>  +		struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd, struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
>  +		unsigned int type, u32 index, phys_addr_t phys, size_t length);

OK. I think these two should be exclusive then. Maybe it needs a
WARN_ON in iommufd_viommu_alloc.

Thanks
Nicolin