linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device isolation infrastructure v2

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]

Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:12:45 -0800
From:	Aaron Fabbri <aafabbri@...co.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
CC:	<chrisw@...hat.com>, <aik@...abs.ru>, <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	<agraf@...e.de>, <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>, <B08248@...escale.com>,
	<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	<scottwood@...escale.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device isolation infrastructure v2




On 12/20/11 8:30 PM, "Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 14:32 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:41:56PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:11:25AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
<snip>
>>> 
>>> Well, the iommu-api was designed for amd-vi and vt-d. But its concepts
>>> turn out to be more general and by no way x86-centric anymore.
>> 
>> It's improving, but there are still plenty of x86isms there.
> 
> Having worked on ia64 for a while, it's interesting to see this x86
> bashing from the other side.  Everyone is more than willing to make
> architecture neutral interfaces (jeez, look at the extent of the vfio
> reworks), but it's not fair to throw away interfaces as x86-centric if
> you're not pushing your requirements and making use of the code.
> 
> It seems like we'd be better served today to start with the vfio code we
> have and let that be the catalyst to drive an iommu api that better
> serves non-x86.  I don't see how this group management tangent is really
> getting us anywhere.  Thanks,

I'd agree that incremental approach here is key.  VFIO has already seen a
ton of rework to accommodate all architectures.  Let's not bite off a bunch
of these other subsystem rewrites in the same chunk as our VFIO effort.

-Aaron

--
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/