linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/8] vfio: Add nested IOPF support

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, 27 May 2021 19:18:44 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com, yuzenghui@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/8] vfio: Add nested IOPF support

Hi Shenming and Alex,

On 5/27/21 7:03 PM, Shenming Lu wrote:
>> I haven't fully read all the references, but who imposes the fact that
>> there's only one fault handler per device?  If type1 could register one
>> handler and the vfio-pci bus driver another for the other level, would
>> we need this path through vfio-core?
> If we could register more than one handler per device, things would become
> much more simple, and the path through vfio-core would not be needed.
> 
> Hi Baolu,
> Is there any restriction for having more than one handler per device?
> 

Currently, each device could only have one fault handler. But one device
might consume multiple page tables. From this point of view, it's more
reasonable to have one handler per page table.

Best regards,
baolu