linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] iommu: Introduce dirty log tracking framework

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:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:59:36 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Tian Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com, jiangkunkun@...wei.com,
        yuzenghui@...wei.com, lushenming@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] iommu: Introduce dirty log tracking framework

Hi Keqian,

On 4/16/21 5:07 PM, Keqian Zhu wrote:
>> I am worrying about having two sets of APIs for single purpose. From
>> vendor iommu driver's point of view, this feature is per device. Hence,
>> it still needs to do the same thing.
> Yes, we can unify the granule of feature reporting and status management.
> 
> The basic granule of dirty tracking is iommu_domain, I think it's very reasonable. We need an
> interface to report the feature of iommu_domain, then the logic is much more clear.
> 
> Every time we add new device or remove device from the domain, we should update the feature (e.g.,
> maintain a counter of unsupported devices).

Yes. This looks cleaner.

> 
> What do you think about this idea?
> 
> Thanks,
> Keqian

Best regards,
baolu