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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 13:19:31 +0100 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com> To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, joro@...tes.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com, will.deacon@....com, robin.murphy@....com Cc: marc.zyngier@....com, peter.maydell@...aro.org, christoffer.dall@....com Subject: Re: [RFC 01/13] iommu: Introduce bind_guest_stage API On 31/08/2018 14:52, Auger Eric wrote: > Do we agree here we can get rid of the struct device * parameter? That's fine by me, in my opinion the bind operation should only be on the domain, like map/unmap. For the invalidation however, I think we need to keep the device as an optional parameter, because the guest may want to invalidate the ATC (DTLB) of a single device. Thanks, Jean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists