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: <9393b9b2c15564ee84b627a73fb34bd17ebe4a7f.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 07 Feb 2019 21:15:24 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, joro@...tes.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Enable PRI only if the device
 enables PASID.

On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 13:09 -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> You are right.. they are completely orthogonal. We just don't have
> a way to handle the page-requests for request without PASID's.
> 
> There are some of the vIOMMU work to pass the PRI to who owns
> the device, and we can certainly relax it then. This is just to reflect
> what support exists today. FWIW, even the native driver maybe be able
> to resolve this if supported.

As things stand, if a device makes a PRI request without a PASID, it'll
get told that we didn't manage to bring the page in for it. Which is
true.

What's the actual problem being fixed by this patch? Yes, we're going
to want to hook up a way to pass the PRI to the right place... but why
add *another* thing that's just going to have to be fixed, by reverting
this patch?


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5174 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ