Hi Bertrand,
On 22/05/2025 16:08, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_partinfo.c b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_partinfo.c
index dfa0b23eaf38..66ea1860e97a 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_partinfo.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/tee/ffa_partinfo.c
@@ -150,6 +150,67 @@ out:
return ret;
}
+static int32_t ffa_get_vm_partinfo(uint32_t *vm_count, void *dst_buf,
+ void *end_buf, uint32_t dst_size)
+{
+ struct ffa_ctx *curr_ctx = current->domain->arch.tee;
+ struct ffa_ctx *dest_ctx, *tmp;
+ uint32_t count = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * There could potentially be a lot of VMs in the system and we could
+ * hold the CPU for long here.
+ * Right now there is no solution in FF-A specification to split
+ * the work in this case.
+ * TODO: Check how we could delay the work or have preemption checks.
+ */
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(dest_ctx, tmp, &ffa_ctx_head, ctx_list)
Looking at this code again, I am a bit puzzled why we don't seem to take
any lock and use list_for_each_entry_safe().
I was under the impression that list_for_each_entry_safe() is used if we
delete an entry within the loop. But it is not used to protect against a
deletion from another core.
Did I misunderstand the logic? If not, we possibly want to use a
readlock (over the existing spinlock).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
