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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     <joro@8bytes.org>, <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        <will@kernel.org>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>
CC:     <jgg@nvidia.com>, <kevin.tian@intel.com>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 02/13] iommu/amd: Drop unnecessary checks in amd_iommu_attach_device()
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:14:51 -0700
Message-ID: <20220914051451.10304-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2022 05:15:08.8056
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 697bac2c-5027-4c8f-03ff-08da961017d9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT043.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL1PR12MB5237
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

The same checks are done in amd_iommu_probe_device(). If any of them fails
there, then the device won't get a group, so there's no way for it to even
reach amd_iommu_attach_device any more.

Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
index 828672a46a3d..930d9946b9f7 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
@@ -2135,21 +2135,13 @@ static void amd_iommu_detach_device(struct iommu_domain *dom,
 static int amd_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *dom,
 				   struct device *dev)
 {
+	struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
 	struct protection_domain *domain = to_pdomain(dom);
-	struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data;
-	struct amd_iommu *iommu;
+	struct amd_iommu *iommu = rlookup_amd_iommu(dev);
 	int ret;
 
-	if (!check_device(dev))
-		return -EINVAL;
-
-	dev_data = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
 	dev_data->defer_attach = false;
 
-	iommu = rlookup_amd_iommu(dev);
-	if (!iommu)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	if (dev_data->domain)
 		detach_device(dev);
 
-- 
2.17.1