linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arch: introduce memremap()

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: <CAPcyv4iAeMAmU1QRZ1=WTav0cg2=-gqzzrt3nMC1QoD1+hOeBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:24 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arch: introduce memremap()

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:50:04AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > Oh, because all we have at this point is ioremap_cache() which
>> > silently falls back.  It's not until the introduction of
>> > arch_memremp() where we update the arch code to break that behavior.
>>
>> Ok, makes sense.  Might be worth to document in the changelog.
>>
>> > That said, I think it may be beneficial to allow a fallback if the
>> > user cares.  So maybe memremap() can call plain ioremap() if
>> > MEMREMAP_STRICT is not set and none of the other mapping types are
>> > satisfied.
>>
>> Is there a real use case for it?  Fallback APIs always seem confusing
>> and it might make more sense to do this in the caller(s) that actually
>> need it.
>
> It seems semantics-wise we are trying to separate these two really, so I agree
> with this. Having a fallback would onloy make things more complicated for any
> sanitizer / checker / etc, and I don't think the practical gains of having a
> fallback outweight the gains of having a clear semantic separation on intended
> memory type and interactions with it.
>

Yup, consider it dropped.  Drivers that want fallback behavior can do
it explicitly.
--
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/