On 2024/11/6 18:05, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 6:02 PM
On 2024/11/6 17:51, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 5:31 PM
On 2024/11/6 15:31, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:19 PM
+
+ spin_lock(&iommu->lock);
+ pte = intel_pasid_get_entry(dev, pasid);
+ if (!pte) {
+ spin_unlock(&iommu->lock);
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
+ if (!pasid_pte_is_present(pte)) {
+ spin_unlock(&iommu->lock);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ old_did = pasid_get_domain_id(pte);
probably should pass the old domain in and check whether the
domain->did is same as the one in the pasid entry and warn otherwise.
this would be a sw bug. 🙂 Do we really want to catch every bug by warn? 🙂
this one should not happen. If it does, something severe jumps out...
yes. that's why I doubt if it's valuable to do it. It should be a vital
bug that bring us this warn. or instead of passing id old domain, how
about just old_did? We use the passed in did instead of using the did
from pte.
My personal feeling - it's worth as such rare bug once happening
would be very difficult to debug. the warning provides useful hint.
Agreed!
