netdev - Re: [RFC 4/7] vdpa: change the map/unmap process to support iommufd

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]

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:09:41 +0800
From: Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: jasowang@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/7] vdpa: change the map/unmap process to support iommufd

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:45 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 01:05:37AM +0800, Cindy Lu wrote:
> > Add the check for iommufd_ictx,If vdpa don't have the iommufd_ictx
> > then will use the Legacy iommu domain pathway
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > index 91da012084e9..8d1ad89d4671 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
> > @@ -981,6 +981,10 @@ static int vhost_vdpa_map(struct vhost_vdpa *v, struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb,
> >       } else if (ops->set_map) {
> >               if (!v->in_batch)
> >                       r = ops->set_map(vdpa, asid, iotlb);
> > +     } else if (!vdpa->iommufd_ictx) {
> > +             /* Legacy iommu domain pathway without IOMMUFD */
> > +             r = iommu_map(v->domain, iova, pa, size,
> > +                           perm_to_iommu_flags(perm));
> >       } else {
> >               r = iommu_map(v->domain, iova, pa, size,
> >                             perm_to_iommu_flags(perm));
>
> Um, why is the 2nd else the same as the new one?
>
the code here seems not in a good logic， I will try to optimize it in
the next version
Thanks
Cindy

> Jason
>