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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <51A68F49.6020908@ozlabs.ru>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2013 09:29:13 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
CC:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>, 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 05/30/2013 09:14 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/29/2013 06:10:33 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 05/30/2013 06:05 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> >> On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> >> > On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> @@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {
>> >> >> >> >>> #define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe2, struct
>> >> >> >> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >> >> >> >>> #define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR      _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe3, struct
>> >> >> >> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> +/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */
>> >> >> >> >>> +#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO,  0xe4, struct
>> >> >> >> >>> kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for emulated
>> >> >> devices) is
>> >> >> >> in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with
>> >> >> > KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sigh.  That's the same thing repeated.  There's only one IOCTL.
>> >> Nothing is
>> >> > being "kept together".
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I meant this ioctl - KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.
>> >
>> > But you didn't put it in the same section as KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.  0xe0
>> > begins a different section.
>>
>> It is not really obvious that there are sections as no comment defines
>> those :)
> 
> There is a comment /* ioctls for fds returned by KVM_CREATE_DEVICE */
> 
> Putting KVM_CREATE_DEVICE in there was mainly to avoid dealing with the
> ioctl number conflict mess in the vm-ioctl section, but at least that one
> is related to the device control API. :-)
> 
>> But yes, makes sense to move it up a bit and change the code to 0xad.
> 
> 0xad is KVM_KVMCLOCK_CTRL

That's it. I am _completely_ confused now. No system whatsoever :(
What rule should I use in order to choose the number for my new ioctl? :)



-- 
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/