Re: [PATCH v13 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Maintain a SID->device structure
Hi Eric, On 2021/2/2 1:19, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Keqian, > > On 2/1/21 1:26 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> On 2020/11/18 19:21, Eric Auger wrote: >>> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker >>> >>> When handling faults from the event or PRI queue, we need to find the >>> struct device associated to a SID. Add a rb_tree to keep track of SIDs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker >> [...] >> >>> } >>> >>> +static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, >>> + struct arm_smmu_master *master) [...] >>> kfree(master); >> >> Thanks, >> Keqian >> > Thank you for the review. Jean will address this issues in his own > series and on my end I will rebase on this latter. > > Best Regards > > Eric > Yeah, and hope this series can be accepted earlier ;-) Thanks, Keqian ___ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Re: [PATCH v13 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Maintain a SID->device structure
Hi Jean,
On 2021/2/1 23:15, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:26:41PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote:
>>> +static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>> + struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> + struct arm_smmu_stream *new_stream, *cur_stream;
>>> + struct rb_node **new_node, *parent_node = NULL;
>>> + struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
>>> +
>>> + master->streams = kcalloc(fwspec->num_ids,
>>> + sizeof(struct arm_smmu_stream), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!master->streams)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + master->num_streams = fwspec->num_ids;
>> This is not roll-backed when fail.
>
> No need, the caller frees master
OK.
>
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
>>> + for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids && !ret; i++) {
>> Check ret at here, makes it hard to decide the start index of rollback.
>>
>> If we fail at here, then start index is (i-2).
>> If we fail in the loop, then start index is (i-1).
>>
> [...]
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + for (; i > 0; i--)
>> should be (i >= 0)?
>> And the start index seems not correct.
>
> Indeed, this whole bit is wrong. I'll fix it while resending the IOPF
> series.
>
> Thanks,
> Jean
OK, I am glad it helps.
Thanks,
Keqian
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Re: [PATCH v13 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Maintain a SID->device structure
Hi Keqian,
On 2/1/21 1:26 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2020/11/18 19:21, Eric Auger wrote:
>> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>>
>> When handling faults from the event or PRI queue, we need to find the
>> struct device associated to a SID. Add a rb_tree to keep track of SIDs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker
> [...]
>
>> }
>>
>> +static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>> + struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>> +{
>> +int i;
>> +int ret = 0;
>> +struct arm_smmu_stream *new_stream, *cur_stream;
>> +struct rb_node **new_node, *parent_node = NULL;
>> +struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
>> +
>> +master->streams = kcalloc(fwspec->num_ids,
>> + sizeof(struct arm_smmu_stream), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +if (!master->streams)
>> +return -ENOMEM;
>> +master->num_streams = fwspec->num_ids;
> This is not roll-backed when fail.
>
>> +
>> +mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
>> +for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids && !ret; i++) {
> Check ret at here, makes it hard to decide the start index of rollback.
>
> If we fail at here, then start index is (i-2).
> If we fail in the loop, then start index is (i-1).
>
>> +u32 sid = fwspec->ids[i];
>> +
>> +new_stream = >streams[i];
>> +new_stream->id = sid;
>> +new_stream->master = master;
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Check the SIDs are in range of the SMMU and our stream table
>> + */
>> +if (!arm_smmu_sid_in_range(smmu, sid)) {
>> +ret = -ERANGE;
>> +break;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Ensure l2 strtab is initialised */
>> +if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_2_LVL_STRTAB) {
>> +ret = arm_smmu_init_l2_strtab(smmu, sid);
>> +if (ret)
>> +break;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Insert into SID tree */
>> +new_node = &(smmu->streams.rb_node);
>> +while (*new_node) {
>> +cur_stream = rb_entry(*new_node, struct arm_smmu_stream,
>> + node);
>> +parent_node = *new_node;
>> +if (cur_stream->id > new_stream->id) {
>> +new_node = &((*new_node)->rb_left);
>> +} else if (cur_stream->id < new_stream->id) {
>> +new_node = &((*new_node)->rb_right);
>> +} else {
>> +dev_warn(master->dev,
>> + "stream %u already in tree\n",
>> + cur_stream->id);
>> +ret = -EINVAL;
>> +break;
>> +}
>> +}
>> +
>> +if (!ret) {
>> +rb_link_node(_stream->node, parent_node, new_node);
>> +rb_insert_color(_stream->node, >streams);
>> +}
>> +}
>> +
>> +if (ret) {
>> +for (; i > 0; i--)
> should be (i >= 0)?
> And the start index seems not correct.
>
>> +rb_erase(>streams[i].node, >streams);
>> +kfree(master->streams);
>> +}
>> +mutex_unlock(>streams_mutex);
>> +
>> +return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void arm_smmu_remove_master(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>> +{
>> +int i;
>> +struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = master->smmu;
>> +struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
>> +
>> +if (!smmu || !master->streams)
>> +return;
>> +
>> +mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
>> +for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids; i++)
>> +rb_erase(>streams[i].node, >streams);
>> +mutex_unlock(>streams_mutex);
>> +
>> +kfree(master->streams);
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct iommu_ops arm_smmu_ops;
>>
>> static struct iommu_device *arm_smmu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> -int i, ret;
>> +int ret;
>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>> struct arm_smmu_master *master;
>> struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
>> @@ -2331,27 +2447,12 @@ static struct iommu_device
>> *arm_smmu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>>
>> master->dev = dev;
>> master->smmu = smmu;
>> -master->sids = fwspec->ids;
>> -master->num_sids = fwspec->num_ids;
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(>bonds);
>> dev_iommu_priv_set(dev, master);
>>
>> -/* Check the SIDs are in range of the SMMU and our stream table */
>> -for (i = 0; i < master->num_sids; i++) {
>> -u32 sid = master->sids[i];
>> -
>> -if (!arm_smmu_sid_in_range(smmu, sid)) {
>> -ret = -ERANGE;
>> -goto err_free_master;
>> -}
>> -
>> -/* Ensure l2 strtab is initialised */
>> -
Re: [PATCH v13 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Maintain a SID->device structure
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:26:41PM +0800, Keqian Zhu wrote:
> > +static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> > + struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + struct arm_smmu_stream *new_stream, *cur_stream;
> > + struct rb_node **new_node, *parent_node = NULL;
> > + struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
> > +
> > + master->streams = kcalloc(fwspec->num_ids,
> > + sizeof(struct arm_smmu_stream), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!master->streams)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + master->num_streams = fwspec->num_ids;
> This is not roll-backed when fail.
No need, the caller frees master
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
> > + for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids && !ret; i++) {
> Check ret at here, makes it hard to decide the start index of rollback.
>
> If we fail at here, then start index is (i-2).
> If we fail in the loop, then start index is (i-1).
>
[...]
> > + if (ret) {
> > + for (; i > 0; i--)
> should be (i >= 0)?
> And the start index seems not correct.
Indeed, this whole bit is wrong. I'll fix it while resending the IOPF
series.
Thanks,
Jean
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Re: [PATCH v13 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Maintain a SID->device structure
Hi Eric,
On 2020/11/18 19:21, Eric Auger wrote:
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker
>
> When handling faults from the event or PRI queue, we need to find the
> struct device associated to a SID. Add a rb_tree to keep track of SIDs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker
[...]
> }
>
> +static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> + struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct arm_smmu_stream *new_stream, *cur_stream;
> + struct rb_node **new_node, *parent_node = NULL;
> + struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
> +
> + master->streams = kcalloc(fwspec->num_ids,
> + sizeof(struct arm_smmu_stream), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!master->streams)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + master->num_streams = fwspec->num_ids;
This is not roll-backed when fail.
> +
> + mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
> + for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids && !ret; i++) {
Check ret at here, makes it hard to decide the start index of rollback.
If we fail at here, then start index is (i-2).
If we fail in the loop, then start index is (i-1).
> + u32 sid = fwspec->ids[i];
> +
> + new_stream = >streams[i];
> + new_stream->id = sid;
> + new_stream->master = master;
> +
> + /*
> + * Check the SIDs are in range of the SMMU and our stream table
> + */
> + if (!arm_smmu_sid_in_range(smmu, sid)) {
> + ret = -ERANGE;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Ensure l2 strtab is initialised */
> + if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_2_LVL_STRTAB) {
> + ret = arm_smmu_init_l2_strtab(smmu, sid);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Insert into SID tree */
> + new_node = &(smmu->streams.rb_node);
> + while (*new_node) {
> + cur_stream = rb_entry(*new_node, struct arm_smmu_stream,
> + node);
> + parent_node = *new_node;
> + if (cur_stream->id > new_stream->id) {
> + new_node = &((*new_node)->rb_left);
> + } else if (cur_stream->id < new_stream->id) {
> + new_node = &((*new_node)->rb_right);
> + } else {
> + dev_warn(master->dev,
> + "stream %u already in tree\n",
> + cur_stream->id);
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (!ret) {
> + rb_link_node(_stream->node, parent_node, new_node);
> + rb_insert_color(_stream->node, >streams);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (ret) {
> + for (; i > 0; i--)
should be (i >= 0)?
And the start index seems not correct.
> + rb_erase(>streams[i].node, >streams);
> + kfree(master->streams);
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(>streams_mutex);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void arm_smmu_remove_master(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = master->smmu;
> + struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(master->dev);
> +
> + if (!smmu || !master->streams)
> + return;
> +
> + mutex_lock(>streams_mutex);
> + for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids; i++)
> + rb_erase(>streams[i].node, >streams);
> + mutex_unlock(>streams_mutex);
> +
> + kfree(master->streams);
> +}
> +
> static struct iommu_ops arm_smmu_ops;
>
> static struct iommu_device *arm_smmu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
> {
> - int i, ret;
> + int ret;
> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> struct arm_smmu_master *master;
> struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
> @@ -2331,27 +2447,12 @@ static struct iommu_device
> *arm_smmu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>
> master->dev = dev;
> master->smmu = smmu;
> - master->sids = fwspec->ids;
> - master->num_sids = fwspec->num_ids;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(>bonds);
> dev_iommu_priv_set(dev, master);
>
> - /* Check the SIDs are in range of the SMMU and our stream table */
> - for (i = 0; i < master->num_sids; i++) {
> - u32 sid = master->sids[i];
> -
> - if (!arm_smmu_sid_in_range(smmu, sid)) {
> - ret = -ERANGE;
> - goto err_free_master;
> - }
> -
> - /* Ensure l2 strtab is initialised */
> - if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_2_LVL_STRTAB) {
> - ret = arm_smmu_init_l2_strtab(smmu,
