linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4 v5] cxl/core: Enable Region creation on x86 with LMH

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aOfG9XKnGRrzxad8@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 10:30:13 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>,
	Cheatham Benjamin <benjamin.cheatham@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 v5] cxl/core: Enable Region creation on x86 with LMH

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 01:25:11PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> On 10/6/25 10:46 AM, Gregory Price wrote:
> >> @@ -1779,8 +1788,13 @@ static int match_cxlsd_to_cxled_by_range(struct device *dev, const void *data)
> >>  	r1 = &cxlsd->cxld.hpa_range;
> >>  	r2 = &cxled->cxld.hpa_range;
> >>  
> >> -	if (is_root_decoder(dev))
> >> -		return range_contains(r1, r2);
> >> +	if (is_root_decoder(dev)) {
> >> +		if (range_contains(r1, r2))
> >> +			return 1;
> >> +		cxlrd = to_cxl_root_decoder(dev);
> >> +		if (platform_cxlrd_matches_cxled(cxlrd, cxled))
> >> +			return 1;
> >> +	}
> > 
> > Is there any concern for longer term maintainability if addition
> > match_*() functions are added?  Or is this upkeep just the unfortunate
> > maintenance cost of supportering the quirk?
> 
> Suggestions welcome. Would be nice if we have cleaner ways of dealing with this.
>

Had a bit of a think about it, but nothing immediately pops out
that doesn't just end with more obfuscation.  It is what it is.

~Gregory