On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:22:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *arm_smmu_share_asid(u16 asid)
> > +{
> > +   struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd;
> >  
> > -   xa_erase(&asid_xa, cd->asid);
> > +   cd = xa_load(&asid_xa, asid);
> > +   if (!cd)
> > +           return NULL;
> > +
> > +   if (cd->mm) {
> > +           /* All devices bound to this mm use the same cd struct. */
> > +           refcount_inc(&cd->refs);
> > +           return cd;
> > +   }
> 
> How do you handle racing against a concurrent arm_smmu_free_asid() here?

Patch 8 adds an asid_lock to deal with this, but it should be introduced
in this patch. There is a potential use-after-free here, if
arm_smmu_domain_free() runs concurrently.

> 
> > +__maybe_unused
> > +static struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *arm_smmu_alloc_shared_cd(struct mm_struct 
> > *mm)
> > +{
> > +   u16 asid;
> > +   int ret = 0;
> > +   u64 tcr, par, reg;
> > +   struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd;
> > +   struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *old_cd = NULL;
> > +
> > +   lockdep_assert_held(&sva_lock);
> 
> Please don't bother with these for static functions (but I can see the
> value in having them for functions with external callers).
> 
> > +
> > +   asid = mm_context_get(mm);
> > +   if (!asid)
> > +           return ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
> > +
> > +   cd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +   if (!cd) {
> > +           ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +           goto err_put_context;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   arm_smmu_init_cd(cd);
> > +
> > +   old_cd = arm_smmu_share_asid(asid);
> > +   if (IS_ERR(old_cd)) {
> > +           ret = PTR_ERR(old_cd);
> > +           goto err_free_cd;
> > +   } else if (old_cd) {
> 
> Don't need the 'else'
> 
> > +           if (WARN_ON(old_cd->mm != mm)) {
> > +                   ret = -EINVAL;
> > +                   goto err_free_cd;
> > +           }
> > +           kfree(cd);
> > +           mm_context_put(mm);
> > +           return old_cd;
> 
> This is a bit messy. Can you consolidate the return path so that ret is a
> pointer and you have an 'int err', e.g.:
> 
>       return err < 0 ? ERR_PTR(err) : ret;

Sure, I think it looks a little nicer this way

Thanks,
Jean
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to