linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC] ARM DMA mapping TODO, v1

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: <201104261628.38734.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:28:38 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer@...aro.org>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC] ARM DMA mapping TODO, v1

On Thursday 21 April 2011, Zach Pfeffer wrote:

> I agree with Jesse that the separation of mapping from allocation is
> central to the current usage models. I realize most people didn't like
> VCMM, but it provided an abstraction for this - if software can handle
> the multiple mapper approach in a rational way across ARM than we can
> solve a lot of problems with all the map and unmap current solutions
> and we don't have to hack in coherency.
 
Any solution we come up with needs to work on only across ARM, but
also across other architectures. Fortunately, most have less weird
constraints, for instance some architecture have no concept of uncached
mappings (and don't need them), or there might be DMA ordering settings
that we have not yet seen on ARM.

	Arnd
--
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/