Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0dd0f4c9-37a6-0418-3f19-22c40ccc8265@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:46:56 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] iommu: Use right way to retrieve iommu_ops
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
References: <20220214015538.2828933-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220214015538.2828933-8-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <YgpP7AhY5hd/DX/C@8bytes.org>
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <YgpP7AhY5hd/DX/C@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/14/22 8:49 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:55:35AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> +static inline const struct iommu_ops *dev_iommu_ops(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Assume that valid ops must be installed if iommu_probe_device()
>> +	 * has succeeded. The device ops are essentially for internal use
>> +	 * within the IOMMU subsystem itself, so we should be able to trust
>> +	 * ourselves not to misuse the helper.
>> +	 */
>> +	WARN_ON(!dev || !dev->iommu || !dev->iommu->iommu_dev ||
>> +		!dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops);
> 
> There is no need for this WARN_ON, the code will oops anyway when one of
> the pointers checked here is NULL.
> 

We really don't need to WARN_ON intermediate null pointers. But I would
argue that we could add a WARN() on null dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops, so
that callers have no need to check the returned ops.

Best regards,
baolu