linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Store IOTLB cache tags in struct arm_smmu_attach

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: <aXgvzoPJDej7HEAm@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:23:58 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<jpb@...nel.org>, <praan@...gle.com>, <miko.lenczewski@....com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Store IOTLB cache tags in
 struct arm_smmu_attach_state

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 04:44:43PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 05:24:19PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > +int arm_smmu_domain_get_iotlb_tag(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
> > +				  struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> > +				  struct arm_smmu_inv *tag)
> > +{
> > +	/* Decide the type of the iotlb cache tag */
> > +	switch (smmu_domain->stage) {
> > +	case ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_SVA:
> > +	case ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1:
> > +		tag->type = INV_TYPE_S1_ASID;
> > +		break;
> > +	case ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S2:
> > +		tag->type = INV_TYPE_S2_VMID;
> > +		break;
> > +	default:
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tag->smmu = smmu;
> > +
> > +	if (tag->type == INV_TYPE_S1_ASID)
> > +		tag->id = smmu_domain->cd.asid;
> > +	else
> > +		tag->id = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;
> 
> Would be tidier to move these up into the case

This will act as a fake allocation path in PATCh-3 and eventually
get replaced with a real allocation piece in PATCH-4. So, I wrote
like this in a transitory manner.

I can add a line of comments to clarify it.

Thanks
Nicolin