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, 30 Oct 2020 19:54:46 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <>
CC:     Dave Jiang <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, Megha Dey <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] Add VFIO mediated device support and DEV-MSI
 support for the idxd driver

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:43:07PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> So drawing that parallel, do you expect all drivers that call
> pci_register_driver() to be located in drivers/pci? Aren't they scattered
> all over the place ata,scsi, platform drivers and such?

The subsystem is the thing that calls
device_register. pci_register_driver() doesn't do that.

> As Alex pointed out, i915 and handful of s390 drivers that are mdev users
> are not in drivers/vfio. Are you sayint those drivers don't get reviewed? 

Past mistakes do not justify continuing to do it wrong.

ARM and PPC went through a huge multi year cleanup moving code out of
arch and into the proper drivers/ directories. We know this is the
correct way to work the development process.

> Your argument seems interesting even entertaining :-). But honestly i'm not finding it
> practical :-). So every caller of mmu_register_notifier() needs to be in
> mm? 

mmu notifiers are not a subsytem, they are core libary code.

You seem to completely not understand what a subsystem is. :(

> I know you aren't going to give up, but there is little we can do. I want
> the maintainers to make that call and I'm not add more noise to this.

Well, hopefully Vinod will insist on following kernel norms here.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists