netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 06/24] vhost-vdpa: switch to use vhost-vdpa specific IOTLB

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 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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:46:28 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, lulu@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rob.miller@...adcom.com,
        lingshan.zhu@...el.com, eperezma@...hat.com, hanand@...inx.com,
        mhabets@...arflare.com, amorenoz@...hat.com,
        maxime.coquelin@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
        sgarzare@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/24] vhost-vdpa: switch to use vhost-vdpa specific
 IOTLB


On 2020/9/30 下午8:02, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:21:07AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> To ease the implementation of per group ASID support for vDPA
>> device. This patch switches to use a vhost-vdpa specific IOTLB to
>> avoid the unnecessary refactoring of the vhost core.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 14 ++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> index 74bef1c15a70..ec3c94f706c1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct vhost_vdpa {
>>   	struct vhost_virtqueue *vqs;
>>   	struct completion completion;
>>   	struct vdpa_device *vdpa;
>> +	struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb;
>>   	struct device dev;
>>   	struct cdev cdev;
>>   	atomic_t opened;
>> @@ -514,12 +515,11 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_iotlb_unmap(struct vhost_vdpa *v,
>>   
>>   static void vhost_vdpa_iotlb_free(struct vhost_vdpa *v)
>>   {
>> -	struct vhost_dev *dev = &v->vdev;
>> -	struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb = dev->iotlb;
>> +	struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb = v->iotlb;
>>   
>>   	vhost_vdpa_iotlb_unmap(v, iotlb, 0ULL, 0ULL - 1);
>> -	kfree(dev->iotlb);
>> -	dev->iotlb = NULL;
>> +	kfree(v->iotlb);
>> +	v->iotlb = NULL;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static int perm_to_iommu_flags(u32 perm)
>> @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>>   	struct vhost_vdpa *v = container_of(dev, struct vhost_vdpa, vdev);
>>   	struct vdpa_device *vdpa = v->vdpa;
>>   	const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = vdpa->config;
>> -	struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb = dev->iotlb;
>> +	struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb = v->iotlb;
>>   	int r = 0;
>>   
>>   	r = vhost_dev_check_owner(dev);
>> @@ -812,12 +812,14 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>   
>>   	r = vhost_vdpa_alloc_domain(v);
>>   	if (r)
>> -		goto err_init_iotlb;
>> +		goto err_alloc_domain;
> You're still using this:
> dev->iotlb = vhost_iotlb_alloc(0, 0);
>
> Shouldn't you use
> v->iotlb = host_iotlb_alloc(0, 0);
>
> to set the vdpa device iotlb field?


Yes, you're right.

Will fix.

Thanks


>
>>   
>>   	filep->private_data = v;
>>   
>>   	return 0;
>>   
>> +err_alloc_domain:
>> +	vhost_vdpa_iotlb_free(v);
>>   err_init_iotlb:
>>   	vhost_vdpa_cleanup(v);
>>   err:
>> -- 
>> 2.20.1
>>