linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module

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]

Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:44:25 +0800
From:   "Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] acrn: add the ACRN driver module

On 2019年08月16日 14:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:25:41AM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote:
>> The first three patches are the changes under x86/acrn, which adds the
>> required APIs for the driver and reports the X2APIC caps.
>> The remaining patches add the ACRN driver module, which accepts the ioctl
>> from user-space and then communicate with the low-level ACRN hypervisor
>> by using hypercall.
> 
> I have a problem with that: you're adding interfaces to arch/x86/ and
> its users go into staging. Why? Why not directly put the driver where
> it belongs, clean it up properly and submit it like everything else is
> submitted?

Thanks for your reply and the concern.

After taking a look at several driver examples(gma500, android), it 
seems that they are firstly added into drivers/staging/XXX and then 
moved to drivers/XXX after the driver becomes mature.
So we refer to this method to upstream ACRN driver part.

If the new driver can also be added by skipping the staging approach,
we will refine it and then submit it in normal process.
> 
> I don't want to have stuff in arch/x86/ which is used solely by code in
> staging and the latter is lingering there indefinitely because no one is
> cleaning it up...
> 

The ACRN driver will be the only user of the added APIs in x86/acrn. 
Without the APIs in x86/acrn, the driver can't add the driver-specifc 
upcall notification ISR or call the hypercall.

Not sure whether it can be sent in two patch sets?
The first is to add the required APIs for ACRN driver.
The second is to add the ACRN driver

Thanks
    Yakui