linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to early

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: <7276921204ba82a2065faa61548f1699.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:14:35 -0800 (PST)
From:	"Saravana Kannan" <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	"Saravana Kannan" <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	dwalker@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@...vell.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Jeff Ohlstein" <johlstei@...eaurora.org>,
	"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: dma-mapping: move consistent_init to 
     early_initcall

Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> Russell,
>>
>> I agree with your point about using an API for purpose and not property.
>> But I read Catalin's proposal as, let's treat secure domain as another
>> DMA
>> "device". If we make a conscious agreement to do that, then using the
>> DMA
>> API for secure domain would be "using it for its purpose" and we will
>> make
>> an effort to not break it with future updates. Of course, if we don't
>> agree on that proposal, then we can't use the DMA API for secure domain
>> stuff.
>
> If there is no better proposal, I'm for such extension to the DMA API.
> From the kernel perspecitve, the secure side is just another entity
> that accesses the RAM directly. It's not a physically separate device
> indeed but from a direct memory access perspective it can be treated
> as any other device.
>
> In the DMA API we can fall back to the non-coherent ops when a NULL
> struct device is passed. I assume in your code you already pass a NULL
> device to dma_alloc_coherent().

Russell,

Would the extension of the DMA API as described above be acceptable to
you? If not, can you please suggest an alternative that's acceptable to
you?

-Saravana
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.


--
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/