linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] virtio_console: Add support for DMA memory allocation

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: <87k3w7j49i.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:34:25 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Sjur Brændeland <sjurbren@...il.com>
Cc:	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] virtio_console: Add support for DMA memory allocation

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:58:47PM +0200, Sjur Brændeland wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> 
>> > Exactly. Though if we just fail load it will be much less code.
>> >
>> > Generally, using a feature bit for this is a bit of a problem though:
>> > normally driver is expected to be able to simply ignore
>> > a feature bit. In this case driver is required to
>> > do something so a feature bit is not a good fit.
>> > I am not sure what the right thing to do is.
>> 
>> I see - so in order to avoid the binding between driver and device
>> there are two options I guess. Either make virtio_dev_match() or
>> virtcons_probe() fail. Neither of them seems like the obvious choice.
>> 
>> Maybe adding a check for VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_DMA_MEM match
>> between device and driver in virtcons_probe() is the lesser evil?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Sjur
>
> A simplest thing to do is change dev id. rusty?

For generic usage, this is correct.  But my opinion is that fallback on
feature non-ack is quality-of-implementation issue: great to have, but
there are cases where you just want to fail with "you're too old".

And in this case, an old system simply will never work.  So it's a
question of how graceful the failure is.

Can your userspace loader can refuse to proceed if the driver doesn't
ack the bits?  If so, it's simpler than a whole new ID.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/