linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Introduce a per-domain arm_smmu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aPaKirLXdOtvuNgA@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 12:16:26 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
	<oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	<robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>, <balbirs@...dia.com>,
	<miko.lenczewski@....com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	<praan@...gle.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Introduce a per-domain
 arm_smmu_invs array

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:10:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 01:12:02PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 09:47:07PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c: note: in included file:
> > > >> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h:1048:9: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@     expected struct callback_head *head @@     got struct callback_head [noderef] __rcu * @@
> > >    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h:1048:9: sparse:     expected struct callback_head *head
> > >    drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h:1048:9: sparse:     got struct callback_head [noderef] __rcu *
> > > >> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h:1048:9: sparse: sparse: cast removes address space '__rcu' of expression
> > ...
> > >   1045	
> > >   1046	static inline void arm_smmu_domain_free(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain)
> > >   1047	{
> > > > 1048		kfree_rcu(smmu_domain->invs, rcu);
> > 
> > Looks like it should be:
> >  static inline void arm_smmu_domain_free(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain)
> >  {
> > -       kfree_rcu(smmu_domain->invs, rcu);
> > +       struct arm_smmu_invs *invs = rcu_dereference(smmu_domain->invs);
> 
> rcu_derference_protected(,true) since we know there is no concurrency
> here..

Oh right, it's outside rcu_read_lock().

Thanks
Nicolin