| Message ID | 20230403111020.3136-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Couple of trivial fixes for LAM vs. SVA interaction | expand |
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 13:10, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Normally, LAM and SVA are mutually exclusive. LAM enabling will fail if > SVA is already in use. > > Correct error code for the failure. EINTR is nonsensical there. > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive") > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > index 74c7e84a94d8..c7dfd727c9ec 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits) > > if (mm_valid_pasid(mm) && > !test_bit(MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA, &mm->context.flags)) > - return -EINTR; > + return -EINVAL; > > if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm)) > return -EINTR; > -- > 2.39.2 >
On 4/3/23 04:10, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > Normally, LAM and SVA are mutually exclusive. LAM enabling will fail if > SVA is already in use. > > Correct error code for the failure. EINTR is nonsensical there. > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive") > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> Hi Kirill, These look fine. But in the future, Link:'s for Reported-by's would be very appreciated if the discussion happened in public.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:31:40AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/3/23 04:10, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > Normally, LAM and SVA are mutually exclusive. LAM enabling will fail if > > SVA is already in use. > > > > Correct error code for the failure. EINTR is nonsensical there. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > > Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive") > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> > > Hi Kirill, > > These look fine. But in the future, Link:'s for Reported-by's would be > very appreciated if the discussion happened in public. Got it. For this one it is: Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACT4Y+YfqSMsZArhh25TESmG-U4jO5Hjphz87wKSnTiaw2Wrfw@mail.gmail.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c index 74c7e84a94d8..c7dfd727c9ec 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c @@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits) if (mm_valid_pasid(mm) && !test_bit(MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA, &mm->context.flags)) - return -EINTR; + return -EINVAL; if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm)) return -EINTR;
Normally, LAM and SVA are mutually exclusive. LAM enabling will fail if SVA is already in use. Correct error code for the failure. EINTR is nonsensical there. Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive") Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)