linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 18/20] iommu/tegra: gart: Don't detach devices from inactive domains

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 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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:41:55 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/20] iommu/tegra: gart: Don't detach devices from
 inactive domains

On 9/25/18 1:04 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:05:48PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 9/24/18 2:00 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:41:51AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> There could be unlimited number of allocated domains, but only one domain
>>>> can be active at a time. Hence devices must be detached only from the
>>>> active domain.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/iommu/tegra-gart.c | 8 +++++---
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Do we have a mechanism of switching out different domains? I don't think
>>> we do, so I'm wondering if perhaps a better solution to this would be to
>>> just refuse to create more than one domain in the first place. That
>>> would also allow us to get rid of the global variable gart_handle.
>>
>> That's what was done in v1, Robin Murphy suggested that it will be
>> better not to restrict allocation of unpopulated domains. It is
>> mentioned in the changelog, see comment to v2 changes.
> 
> Okay, fine.

Thanks, taking as ACK.