linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch] init default dma_ops to prepare intel_iommu

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: <1250069768.29180.85.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:36:08 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com>
Cc:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] init default dma_ops to prepare intel_iommu_init
 failure

On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 17:20 +0800, Luming Yu wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> On ia64 platform with dmar table and new upstream
> kernel(config_dmar_default_on enabled),
> if intel_iommu_init ends up without dma_ops initialized or other iommu
> failures.
> We got nothing to fall back. The following patch fixes it.

Hm, don't we then end up with a 64MiB allocation for swiotlb buffers
which we don't need? We can't defer the allocation until we know -- I
think we need to come up with some way to give it _back_ if the swiotlb
turns out not to be needed? And we should do this for i386/x86_64 too.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com                              Intel Corporation

--
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/