Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:08:12 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc:     joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@huawei.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        robin.murphy@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] iommu/iova: Avoid double-negatives in magazine
 helpers
Message-ID: <YAVeDOiKBEKZ2Tdq@myrica>
References: <1607538189-237944-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <1607538189-237944-3-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <YAHRKCkcHAEUdRNT@larix.localdomain>
 <69c30e85-4a72-a0e1-1e56-4ffbd0df5aba@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <69c30e85-4a72-a0e1-1e56-4ffbd0df5aba@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:24:17AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 15/01/2021 17:30, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 02:23:08AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > A similar crash to the following could be observed if initial CPU rcache
> > > magazine allocations fail in init_iova_rcaches():
> > 
> 
> thanks for having a look
> 
> > Any idea why that's happening?  This fix seems ok but if we're expecting
> > allocation failures for the loaded magazine then we could easily get it
> > for cpu_rcaches too, and get a similar abort at runtime.
> 
> It's not specifically that we expect them (allocation failures for the
> loaded magazine), rather we should make safe against it.
> 
> So could you be more specific in your concern for the cpu_rcache failure?
> cpu_rcache magazine assignment comes from this logic.

If this fails:

drivers/iommu/iova.c:847: rcache->cpu_rcaches = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(*cpu_rcache), cache_line_size());

then we'll get an Oops in __iova_rcache_get(). So if we're making the
module safer against magazine allocation failure, shouldn't we also
protect against cpu_rcaches allocation failure?

Thanks,
Jean

> 
> Anyway, logic like "if not full" or "if not empty" is poor as the outcome
> for NULL is ambiguous (maybe there's a better word) and the code is not safe
> against it, and so I replace with "if space" or "if have an IOVA",
> respectively.
> 
> Thanks,
> John
>