linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/8] KVM: PVDMA Guest: Guest-side routines for paravirtualized DMA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47386907.5080101@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:53:59 +0100
From:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To:	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
CC:	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...ranet.com>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 3/8] KVM: PVDMA Guest: Guest-side routines
 for paravirtualized DMA

Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:21:04PM +0200, Amit Shah wrote:
> 
>> We make the dma_mapping_ops structure to point to our structure so
>> that every DMA access goes through us. (This is the reason this only
>> works for 64-bit guest. 32-bit guest doesn't yet have a dma_ops
>> struct.)
> 
> I need the same facility for Calgary for falling back to swiotlb if a
> translation is disabled on some slot, and IB needs the same facility
> for some IB adapters (e.g., ipath). Perhaps it's time to consider
> stackable dma-ops (unless someone has a better idea...).

Hmm, at least the later sounds like for per-device dma_ops would be more
useful that stackable ones, as each stack instance just checks "should I
do something for device $foo, if not, call the next one ...".

cheers,
  Gerd

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/