On 11/9/22 3:21 PM, Eric Farman wrote:
> From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The ORB is a construct that is sent to the real hardware,
> so should contain a physical address in its interrupt
> parameter field. Let's clarify that.
>
> Note: this currently doesn't fix a real bug, since virtual
> addresses are identical to physical ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [EF: Updated commit message]
> Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c
> index a59c758869f8..0a5e8b4a6743 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static int fsm_io_helper(struct vfio_ccw_private *private)
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(sch->lock, flags);
>
> - orb = cp_get_orb(&private->cp, (u32)(addr_t)sch, sch->lpm);
> + orb = cp_get_orb(&private->cp, (u32)virt_to_phys(sch), sch->lpm);
Nit: I think it would make more sense to do the virt_to_phys inside cp_get_orb at the time we place the address in the orb (since that's what gets sent to hardware), rather than requiring all callers of cp_get_orb to pass a physical address. I realize there is only 1 caller today.
Nit++: Can we make the patch subjects match? vfio/ccw or vfio-ccw
Either way:
Reviewed-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> if (!orb) {
> ret = -EIO;
> goto out;
