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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 21:19:27 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> To: "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>, "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>, "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>, "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>, "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "netanelg@...lanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>, "shahafs@...lanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>, "yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Ortiz, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>, "Hossain, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>, "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/18] irq/dev-msi: Add support for a new DEV_MSI irq domain On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:13:24AM +0000, Dey, Megha wrote: > > Well, I had suggested to pass in the parent struct device, but it could certainly > > use an irq_domain instead: > > > > platform_msi_assign_domain(dev, device_to_iommu(p_dev)->ir_domain); > > > > Or > > > > platform_msi_assign_domain(dev, pdev->msi_domain) > > > > ? > > > > Any maybe the natural expression is to add a version of > > platform_msi_create_device_domain() that accepts a parent irq_domain() and if > > the device doesn't already have a msi_domain then it creates one. Might be too > > tricky to manage lifetime of the new irq_domain though.. > > > > It feels cleaner to me if everything related to this is contained in the > > platform_msi and the driver using it. Not sure it makes sense to involve the > > iommu? > > Well yeah something like this can be done, but what is the missing > piece is where the IRQ domain actually gets created, i.e where this > new version of platform_msi_create_device_domain() is called. That > is the only piece that is currently done in the IOMMU driver only > for DSA mdev. Not that all devices need to do it this way.. do you > have suggestions as to where you want to call this function? Oops, I was thinking of platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs() not create_device_domain() ie call it in the device driver that wishes to consume the extra MSIs. Is there a harm if each device driver creates a new irq_domain for its use? Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists