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: <3877989d0908130111m1a7d8625ha84ed1732a7eae81@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:11:46 +0800
From:	Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com>
To:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	fenghua.yu@...el.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] init default dma_ops to prepare intel_iommu_init 
	failure

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, FUJITA
Tomonori<fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:37:54 +0800
> Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM, FUJITA
>> Tomonori<fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:03:20 +0800
>> > Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for another workaround, we should be working on deleting wrong
>> >> assumption of"iommu_deteced == iommu working", Not just workaround. My
>> >> patch could break something.. but it is just a start towards right
>> >> goal..
>> >
>> > As I explained, your patch doesn't go toward the right goal.
>>
>> The goal is to decouple dma_ops init and iommu_detect.
>> In that sense, my patch is right.
>
> No, your patch is a workaround too.
>
> If you want swiotlb the default dma_ops for IA64, pci_swiotlb_init()
> is the wrong place for swiotlb_init() because sba needs swiotlb too
> for the same reason. Probably, we should always set platform_dma_init
> to swiotlb_dma_init().
>
>
> You want to fix this problem for 2.6.31? Or you think about 2.6.32 (or
> later)?
>

I treat this as -32 or -33 stuff, because I don't see a real system is blocking
on the problem. I found this problem when I was trying to disable some drhd
for debugging a real iommu issue...that one has priority.
--
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/