Re: [GIT PULL] IOMMU fix for 5.10 (-final)

[Jerry Snitselaar]

Will Deacon @ 2020-12-09 11:50 MST:

> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:07:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:12 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please pull this one-liner AMD IOMMU fix for 5.10. It's actually a fix
>> > for a fix, where the size of the interrupt remapping table was increased
>> > but a related constant for the size of the interrupt table was forgotten.
>> 
>> Pulled.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> However, why didn't this then add some sanity checking for the two
>> different #defines to be in sync?
>> 
>> IOW, something like
>> 
>>    #define AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT 9
>> 
>>    #define MAX_IRQS_PER_TABLE (1 << AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT)
>>    #define DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN ((u64)AMD_IOMMU_IRQ_TABLE_SHIFT << 1)

Since the field in the device table entry format expects it to be n
where there are 2^n entries in the table I guess it should be:

#define DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN 9
#define MAX_IRQS_PER_TABLE (1 << DTE_IRQ_TABLE_LEN)

>> 
>> or whatever. Hmm?
>
> This looks like a worthwhile change to me, but I don't have any hardware
> so I've been very reluctant to make even "obvious" driver changes here.
>
> Suravee -- please can you post a patch implementing the above?
>
>> That way this won't happen again, but perhaps equally importantly the
>> linkage will be more clear, and there won't be those random constants.
>> 
>> Naming above is probably garbage - I assume there's some actual
>> architectural name for that irq table length field in the DTE?
>
> The one in the spec is even better: "IntTabLen".
>
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu