[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190812202920.GC5964@ram.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:29:20 -0700
From: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-devel@...ts.ozlabs.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] virtio_ring: Use DMA API if guest memory is encrypted
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:13:24PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:46:21PM -0700, Ram Pai wrote:
> > If the hypervisor (hardware for hw virtio devices) does not mandate a
> > DMA API, why is it illegal for the driver to request, special handling
> > of its i/o buffers? Why are we associating this special handling to
> > always mean, some DMA address translation? Can't there be
> > any other kind of special handling needs, that has nothing to do with
> > DMA address translation?
>
> I don't think it is illegal per se. It is however completely broken
> if we do that decision on a system weide scale rather than properly
> requesting it through a per-device flag in the normal virtio framework.
if the decision has to be system-wide; for reasons known locally only to the
kernel/driver, something that is independent of any device-flag,
what would be the mechanism?
RP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists