linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 12/13] 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]

Date:	Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:45:28 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/13] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

On 09/06/2013 04:57 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:05:09PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 13:53 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>> Or supporting all IOMMU links (and leaving emulated stuff as is) in on
>>>> "device" is the last thing I have to do and then you'll ack the patch?
>>>>
>>> I am concerned more about API here. Internal implementation details I
>>> leave to powerpc experts :)
>>
>> So Gleb, I want to step in for a bit here.
>>
>> While I understand that the new KVM device API is all nice and shiny and that this
>> whole thing should probably have been KVM devices in the first place (had they
>> existed or had we been told back then), the point is, the API for handling
>> HW IOMMUs that Alexey is trying to add is an extension of an existing mechanism
>> used for emulated IOMMUs.
>>
>> The internal data structure is shared, and fundamentally, by forcing him to
>> use that new KVM device for the "new stuff", we create a oddball API with
>> an ioctl for one type of iommu and a KVM device for the other, which makes
>> the implementation a complete mess in the kernel (and you should care :-)
>>
> Is it unfixable mess? Even if Alexey will do what you suggested earlier?
> 
>   - Convert *both* existing TCE objects to the new
>       KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, and have some backward compat code for the old one.
> 
> The point is implementation usually can be changed, but for API it is
> much harder to do so.
> 
>> So for something completely new, I would tend to agree with you. However, I
>> still think that for this specific case, we should just plonk-in the original
>> ioctl proposed by Alexey and be done with it.
>>
> Do you think this is the last extension to IOMMU code, or we will see
> more and will use same justification to continue adding ioctls?


Ok. I give up :) I implemented KVM device the way you suggested. Could you
please have a look? It is "[PATCH v10 12/13] KVM: PPC: Add support for
IOMMU in-kernel handling", attached to this thread. Thanks!



-- 
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/