linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove fullflush and nofullflush in IOMMU generic option

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:48:11 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	joerg.roedel@....com
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove fullflush and nofullflush in IOMMU generic
 option

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:01:18 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:40:35AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:30:04 +0200
> > Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:09:21AM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Please keep it for AMD option for now. Please send a patch to make it
> > > > generic to other IOMMU people and give them a chance to discuss on
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Btw, you already agreed with a generic iommu= parameter for lazy IO/TLB
> > > flushing"
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  > True. We should merge common parameters across IOMMUs into the
> > >  > iommu= parameter some time in the future, I think. It would also be the
> > >  > place for the IOMMU size parameter.
> > > 
> > >  Hmm, now is better than the future? I think that now you can add
> > >  something like 'disable_batching_flush' as a common parameter and
> > >  change AMD IOMMU to use it.
> > > 
> > > in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/17/376
> > > 
> > > And since we already have a iommu=fullflush parameter it makes sense of
> > > make it generic.
> > 
> > I'm not against fullflush but we need to discuss it with other people
> > before making the change.
> 
> Weird. Just 2 hours ago you wrote:
> 
> |http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/106
> |
> |For me, adding these boot parameters doesn't make sense.

See:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/19/221


> Anyway, I wrote to the Intel and Calgary developers and asked them for
> their opinion. If they have real objections I am the last person NACKing
> your original patch in this thread again.

I think that I already expressed a real objection for nofullflush
twice though I'm not the maintainer of any IOMMUs.


> The reason why I queued this patch in AMD IOMMU updates was that I
> didn't wanted to implement an option specificly for AMD IOMMU when there
> will be a generic one soon. This is double work I prefered to do it

You were not sure that they will be generic before discussion.


> right in the first step. The change does not break anything on Intel and
> Calgary.
--
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/