linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/7] dma-direct: atomic allocations must come from atomic coherent pools

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:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:09:58 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Jon Grimm <jon.grimm@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/7] dma-direct: atomic allocations must come from
 atomic coherent pools

The subject should say something like "atomic unencrypted allocations.."
as many other atomic allocations are fine.  Which brings up that with
the codebase in this patch we can't really support architectures that
require both an atomic pool for uncached remapping for just some devices
and unencrypted for others.  We don't have such an archicture right now,
and I hope we don't grow one, but we probably need a little safeguard
with a BUILD_BUG_ON if both options are set.  I can send an incremental
patch for that if that is ok with you.