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

Message-ID: <20251020121056.GJ316284@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:10:56 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...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 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..

Jason