linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] docs: IOMMU user API

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:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 08:29:05 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] docs: IOMMU user API

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:07:13 +0800
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 7/8/20 7:43 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > +For UAPIs that are shared with in-kernel users, a wrapper function
> > +is provided to distinguish the callers. For example,
> > +
> > +Userspace caller ::
> > +
> > +  int iommu_sva_unbind_gpasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
> > device *dev,
> > +  void __user *udata)
> > +
> > +In-kernel caller ::
> > +
> > +  int __iommu_sva_unbind_gpasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > struct device *dev,
> > +  struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data *data)  
> 
> iommu_page_response() may have the same needs. Can we reach an
> agreement on the naming rules?
> 
Yes iommu_page_response() also has to deal with in-kernel and UAPI
callers. I left it out because I thought the current VFIO and SVA common
code is not ready for PRQ yet, I might be reading old news :) argsz
need to be handled as well.

Perhaps we can wait until this set is settled? Do you have a suggestion
on the naming rules?

> Best regards,
> baolu

[Jacob Pan]