lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 12/22] iommu: introduce device fault report API
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:53:52 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed a couple issues when testing
>
> On 16/04/18 22:49, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > +int iommu_register_device_fault_handler(struct device *dev,
> > + iommu_dev_fault_handler_t
> > handler,
> > + void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct iommu_param *param = dev->iommu_param;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Device iommu_param should have been allocated when
> > device is
> > + * added to its iommu_group.
> > + */
> > + if (!param)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* Only allow one fault handler registered for each device
> > */
> > + if (param->fault_param)
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> Should this be inside the param lock? We probably don't expect
> concurrent register/unregister but it seems cleaner
agreed, same as corrections below. Thanks!
>
> [...]
>
> We should return EINVAL here, if fault_param is NULL. That way users
> can call unregister_fault_handler unconditionally in their cleanup
> paths
>
> > + /* we cannot unregister handler if there are pending
> > faults */
> > + if (list_empty(&param->fault_param->faults)) {
>
> if (!list_empty(...))
>
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_del(&param->fault_param->faults);
>
> faults is the list head, no need for list_del
>
> > + kfree(param->fault_param);
> > + param->fault_param = NULL;
> > + put_device(dev);
> > +
> > +unlock:
> > + mutex_unlock(&param->lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> return ret
>
> Thanks,
> Jean

[Jacob Pan]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-30 20:53    [W:0.074 / U:2.164 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site