linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Fix scatterlist offset 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: <20171116210933.GA53016@otc-nc-03>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:09:33 -0800
From:   "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, leedom@...lsio.com,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Harsh@...lsio.com,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Fix scatterlist offset handling

Hi Alex

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:54:56 -0800
> Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Alex and all,
> > 
> > Just wondering if you could merge Robin's patch for the next rc. From
> > all our testing, this seems to be a solid fix and should be included in
> > the stable releases as well.
> 
> Hi Jacob,
> 
> Sorry, this wasn't on my radar, I only scanned for patches back through
> about when Joerg refreshed his next branch (others on the list speak up
> if I didn't pickup your patches for the v4.15 merge window).
> 
> This patch makes sense to me and I'm glad you were able to work through
> the anomaly Harsh saw in testing as an unrelated issue, but...
> 
> 
> What do we do about this?  I certainly can't rip out large page support
> and put a stable tag on the patch.  I'm not really spotting what's
> wrong with large page support here, other than the comment about it
> being a mess.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
> 

Largepage seems to work and i don't think we need to rip it out. When
Harsh tested it at one point we thought disabling super-page seemed to make
the problem go away. Jacob tested and we still saw the need for Robin's patch.

Yes, the function looks humongous but i don't think we should wait for that 
before this merge.

Cheers,
Ashok