linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 May 2013 00:26:48 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

On 05/27/2013 08:23 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 25/05/2013 04:45, David Gibson ha scritto:
>>>> +	case KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU: {
>>>> +		struct kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu create_tce_iommu;
>>>> +		struct kvm *kvm = filp->private_data;
>>>> +
>>>> +		r = -EFAULT;
>>>> +		if (copy_from_user(&create_tce_iommu, argp,
>>>> +				sizeof(create_tce_iommu)))
>>>> +			goto out;
>>>> +		r = kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce_iommu(kvm,
>>>> &create_tce_iommu);
>>>> +		goto out;
>>>> +	}
> 
> Would it make sense to make this the only interface for creating TCEs?
> That is, pass both a window_size and an IOMMU group id (or e.g. -1 for
> no hardware IOMMU usage), and have a single ioctl for both cases?
> There's some duplicated code between kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce and
> kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce_iommu.

Just few bits. Is there really much sense in making one function from those
two? I tried, looked a bit messy.

> KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE could stay for backwards-compatibility, or you
> could just use a new capability and drop the old ioctl.

The old capability+ioctl already exist for quite a while and few QEMU
versions supporting it were released so we do not want just drop it. So
then what is the benefit of having a new interface with support of both types?

>  I'm not sure
> whether you're already considering the ABI to be stable for kvmppc.

Is any bit of KVM using it? Cannot see from Documentation/ABI.


-- 
Alexey
--
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/