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:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 08:44:33 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] docs: IOMMU user API

Hi Jacob,

On 7/8/20 11:29 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> 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?

I have no suggestion on the naming rules, just wanted to check whether
others have any preference. I agree that we can wait until this series
is settled.

Best regards,
baolu