linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] PCI: Add pci_find_common_upstream

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]

Message-ID: <5498e9b5-8fe5-8999-a44e-f7dc483bc9ce@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:02:46 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] PCI: Add pci_find_common_upstream_dev()

Am 28.03.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Logan Gunthorpe:
>
> On 28/03/18 09:07 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> From: "wdavis@...dia.com" <wdavis@...dia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add an interface to find the first device which is upstream of both
>>>> devices.
>>> Please work with Logan and base this on top of the outstanding peer
>>> to peer patchset.
>> Can you point me to that? The last code I could find about that was from
>> 2015.
> The latest posted series is here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/12/830
>
> However, we've made some significant changes to the area that's similar
> to what you are doing. You can find lasted un-posted here:
>
> https://github.com/sbates130272/linux-p2pmem/tree/pci-p2p-v4-pre2
>
> Specifically this function would be of interest to you:
>
> https://github.com/sbates130272/linux-p2pmem/blob/0e9468ae2a5a5198513dd12990151e09105f0351/drivers/pci/p2pdma.c#L239
>
> However, the difference between what we are doing is that we are
> interested in the distance through the common upstream device and you
> appear to be finding the actual common device.

Yeah, that looks very similar to what I picked up from the older 
patches, going to read up on that after my vacation.

Just in general why are you interested in the "distance" of the devices?

And BTW: At least for writes that Peer 2 Peer transactions between 
different root complexes work is actually more common than the other way 
around.

So I'm a bit torn between using a blacklist or a whitelist. A whitelist 
is certainly more conservative approach, but that could get a bit long.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Logan