[PATCH] iommu: Check dev->iommu in iommu_dev_xxx functions
The device iommu probe/attach might have failed leaving dev->iommu to NULL and device drivers may still invoke these functions resulting a crash in iommu vendor driver code. Hence make sure we check that. Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index ffeebda8d6de..cb68153c5cc0 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_has_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops; - if (ops && ops->dev_has_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_has_feat) return ops->dev_has_feat(dev, feat); return false; @@ -2878,7 +2878,7 @@ int iommu_dev_enable_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops; - if (ops && ops->dev_enable_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_enable_feat) return ops->dev_enable_feat(dev, feat); return -ENODEV; @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ int iommu_dev_disable_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops; - if (ops && ops->dev_disable_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_disable_feat) return ops->dev_disable_feat(dev, feat); return -EBUSY; @@ -2905,7 +2905,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_feature_enabled(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops; - if (ops && ops->dev_feat_enabled) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_feat_enabled) return ops->dev_feat_enabled(dev, feat); return false; -- 2.17.1
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:06:29 +0000 Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
The device iommu probe/attach might have failed leaving dev->iommu to NULL and device drivers may still invoke these functions resulting a crash in iommu vendor driver code. Hence make sure we check that.
Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index ffeebda8d6de..cb68153c5cc0 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_has_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_has_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_has_feat) return ops->dev_has_feat(dev, feat);
Might make sense to make these more self-contained, e.g.: if (dev->iommu && dev->iommu->ops->foo) dev->iommu->ops->foo() Robin.
return false; @@ -2878,7 +2878,7 @@ int iommu_dev_enable_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_enable_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_enable_feat) return ops->dev_enable_feat(dev, feat);
return -ENODEV; @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ int iommu_dev_disable_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_disable_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_disable_feat) return ops->dev_disable_feat(dev, feat);
return -EBUSY; @@ -2905,7 +2905,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_feature_enabled(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_feat_enabled) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_feat_enabled) return ops->dev_feat_enabled(dev, feat);
return false;
Hi Robin,
-----Original Message----- From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] Sent: 26 January 2021 13:51 To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; jean-philippe@linaro.org; will@kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Check dev->iommu in iommu_dev_xxx functions
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:06:29 +0000 Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
The device iommu probe/attach might have failed leaving dev->iommu to NULL and device drivers may still invoke these functions resulting a crash in iommu vendor driver code. Hence make sure we check that.
Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index ffeebda8d6de..cb68153c5cc0 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_has_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_has_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_has_feat) return ops->dev_has_feat(dev, feat);
Might make sense to make these more self-contained, e.g.:
if (dev->iommu && dev->iommu->ops->foo) dev->iommu->ops->foo()
Right. Does that mean adding ops to "struct dev_iommu" or retrieve ops like below, if (dev->iommu && dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops->foo) dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops->foo() Sorry, not clear to me. Thanks, Shameer
On 2021-01-26 16:40, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
Hi Robin,
-----Original Message----- From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] Sent: 26 January 2021 13:51 To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; jean-philippe@linaro.org; will@kernel.org; linuxarm@openeuler.org; Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Check dev->iommu in iommu_dev_xxx functions
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:06:29 +0000 Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> wrote:
The device iommu probe/attach might have failed leaving dev->iommu to NULL and device drivers may still invoke these functions resulting a crash in iommu vendor driver code. Hence make sure we check that.
Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index ffeebda8d6de..cb68153c5cc0 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_has_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat) { const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
- if (ops && ops->dev_has_feat) + if (dev->iommu && ops && ops->dev_has_feat) return ops->dev_has_feat(dev, feat);
Might make sense to make these more self-contained, e.g.:
if (dev->iommu && dev->iommu->ops->foo) dev->iommu->ops->foo()
Right. Does that mean adding ops to "struct dev_iommu" or retrieve ops like below,
if (dev->iommu && dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops->foo) dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops->foo()
Sorry, not clear to me.
Bleh, I was thinking that dev->iommu pointed directly to a struct iommu_device there, sorry. There are too many things and not enough distinct names for the things. But yeah, basically that if the device's "I am associated with an IOMMU" data is set, then by construction it must lead to a set of ops which are definitely valid. Conceptually it's cleaner than combining two different data sources (the per-device info plus the bus ops which may or may not be relevant to a given device), even if cosmetically we have to juggle through practically every possible permutation of the names "iommu" and "device" to get there :/ Robin.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:06:29PM +0000, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
The device iommu probe/attach might have failed leaving dev->iommu to NULL and device drivers may still invoke these functions resulting a crash in iommu vendor driver code. Hence make sure we check that.
Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index ffeebda8d6de..cb68153c5cc0 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ bool iommu_dev_has_feature(struct device *dev, enum iommu_dev_features feat)
This function has been removed from the iommu-tree. Can you please rebase this patch against the latest 'core' branch when I pushed it later this week (maybe even later today)? A Fixes tag would be nice too. Regards, Joerg
participants (4)
-
Joerg Roedel -
Robin Murphy -
Shameer Kolothum -
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi