[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aIKd1owebUNQeN1-@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:55:50 +0000
From: Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@...gle.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: jgg@...dia.com, will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org, robin.murphy@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Replace vsmmu_size/type with
get_viommu_size
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 06:58:20PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 01:37:53PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 01:04:44PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > @@ -1273,6 +1279,10 @@ tegra241_cmdqv_init_vintf_user(struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu,
> > > > phys_addr_t page0_base;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > + /* Unsupported type was rejected in tegra241_cmdqv_get_vintf_size() */
Sorry, if this wasn't clear in the previous comment. I meant this
comment must be updated, the "unsupported type" wasn't rejected in
vintf_size, rather the type got corrupted which brought us here. Had the
vintf_size rejected it, we wouldn't be calling the init op.
Thanks,
Praan
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(vsmmu->core.type != IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_TEGRA241_CMDQV))
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Nit: I don't think we'd expect a call to this if the vintf_size returned
> > > 0? I see that in iommufd_viommu_alloc_ioctl, we already have a check:
> >
> > It's added in the previous patch where I explained that this is
> > to detect data corruption. When something like that happens, it
> > would be often illogical.
> >
>
> Right.. I got mis-led by the comment, my point is that if an
> "unsupported type" was rejected in _get_vintf_size, we wouldn't be here
> calling viommu_init since we error out based on the check in
> iommufd_viommu_alloc_ioctl.. but yes, if there was some data corruption
> that changed the viommu type between these calls, I guess it makes sense
> to check and error out here.
>
> > > And call ops->viommu_init only when the above isn't met. Thus,
> > > if we still end up calling ops->viommu_init, shouldn't we BUG_ON() it?
> > > I'd rather have the core code handle such things (since the driver is
> > > simply implementing the ops) and BUG_ON() something that's terribly
> > > wrong..
> >
> > BUG_ON is discouraged following the coding style:
> > https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-style.html#use-warn-rather-than-bug
> >
>
> Noted. Thanks.
>
> > > I can't see any ops->viommu_init being called elsewhere atm, let me
> > > know if there's a different path that I missed..
> >
> > I see it as a precaution that should never get triggered. But in
> > case that it happens, I don't want it to proceed further wasting
> > precious HW resource given that this function allocates a VINTF.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Nicolin
>
> Praan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists