linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc

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: <q2kvwmnxomqlcx7zgvlvyhupduytfubcu5vghuf6ztrdaq55pb@gq4tg7qughun>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 14:37:17 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
Cc: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>, 
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, 
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, 
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, 
	Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, 
	Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc_signal() return code

Hi Matt,

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 03:56:32PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:56:57PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > > @@ -93,9 +92,9 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > >  		spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
> > >  		list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
> > >  			list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> > > -			err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> > 
> > why don't we do
> > 
> > XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_signal_locked(..))
> > 
> 
> IIRC the above statement can compile out. So the patch looks correct to me.

you have defined XE_WARN_ON as WARN_ON that should always
evaluate the content and, depending on the configuration, it
prints the logs or not.

What I don't like from this patch is that we end up checking
twice for the DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT bit.

Thanks,
Andi