On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:31:21 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/3/22 10:39, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> > On 2/14/22 19:50, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> >> /**
> >> - * vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing - verifies that the AP matrix is
> >> not configured
> >> + * vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing - verify APQNs are not shared by
> >> matrix mdevs
> >> *
> >> - * @matrix_mdev: the mediated matrix device
> >> + * @mdev_apm: mask indicating the APIDs of the APQNs to be verified
> >> + * @mdev_aqm: mask indicating the APQIs of the APQNs to be verified
> >> *
> >> - * Verifies that the APQNs derived from the cross product of the AP
> >> adapter IDs
> >> - * and AP queue indexes comprising the AP matrix are not configured
> >> for another
> >> + * Verifies that each APQN derived from the Cartesian product of a
> >> bitmap of
> >> + * AP adapter IDs and AP queue indexes is not configured for any matrix
> >> * mediated device. AP queue sharing is not allowed.
> >> *
> >> - * Return: 0 if the APQNs are not shared; otherwise returns
> >> -EADDRINUSE.
> >> + * Return: 0 if the APQNs are not shared; otherwise return -EADDRINUSE.
> >> */
> >> -static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(struct ap_matrix_mdev
> >> *matrix_mdev)
> >> +static int vfio_ap_mdev_verify_no_sharing(unsigned long *mdev_apm,
> >> + unsigned long *mdev_aqm)
> >> {
> >> - struct ap_matrix_mdev *lstdev;
> >> + struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> >> DECLARE_BITMAP(apm, AP_DEVICES);
> >> DECLARE_BITMAP(aqm, AP_DOMAINS);
> >> - list_for_each_entry(lstdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >> - if (matrix_mdev == lstdev)
> >> + list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * If the input apm and aqm belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix,
How about:
s/belong to the matrix_mdev's matrix/are fields of the matrix_mdev
object/
> >> + * then move on to the next.
> >> + */
> >> + if (mdev_apm == matrix_mdev->matrix.apm &&
> >> + mdev_aqm == matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm)
> >> continue;
> >
> > We may have a problem here. This check seems like it exists to stop
> > you from
> > comparing an mdev's apm/aqm with itself. Obviously comparing an mdev's
> > newly
> > updated apm/aqm with itself would cause a false positive sharing
> > check, right?
> > If this is the case, I think the comment should be changed to reflect
> > that.
>
> You are correct, this check is performed to prevent comparing an mdev to
> itself, I'll improve the comment.
>
> >
> > Aside from the comment, what stops this particular series of if
> > statements from
> > allowing us to configure a second mdev with the exact same apm/aqm
> > values as an
> > existing mdev? If we do, then this check's continue will short circuit
> > the rest
> > of the function thereby allowing that 2nd mdev even though it should be a
> > sharing violation.
>
> I don't see how this is possible.
I agree with Tony and his explanation.
Furthermore IMHO is relates to the class identity vs equality problem, in
a sense that identity always implies equality.
Regards,
Halil
