linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/23] iommu: Refactor DMA domain strictness

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:13:08 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
        <will@...nel.org>
CC:     <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] iommu: Refactor DMA domain strictness

On 21/07/2021 19:20, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> First off, yes, this conflicts with just about everything else
> currently in-flight. Sorry about that. If it stands up to initial review
> then I'll start giving some thought to how to fit everything together
> (particularly John's cleanup of strictness defaults, which I'd be
> inclined to fold into a v2 of this series).

It seems to me that patch #20 is the only real conflict, and that is 
just a different form of mine in that passthrough, strict, and lazy are 
under a single choice, as opposed to passthrough being a separate config 
(for mine). And on that point, I did assume that we would have a 
different sysfs file for strict vs lazy in this series, and not a new 
domain type. But I assume that there is a good reason for that.

Anyway, I'd really like to see my series just merged now.

Thanks,
John


> 
> Anyway, this is my take on promoting the strict vs. non-strict DMA
> domain choice to distinct domain types, so that it can fit logically
> into the existing sysfs and Kconfig controls. The first 13 patches are
> effectively preparatory cleanup to reduce churn in the later changes,
> but could be merged in their own right even if the rest is too
> contentious. I ended up splitting patches #2-#11 by driver for ease of
> review, since some of them are more than just trivial deletions, but
> they could readily be squashed (even as far as with #1 and #12 too).
> 
> I'm slightly surprised at how straightforward it's turned out, but it
> has survived some very basic smoke testing for arm-smmu using dmatest
> on my Arm Juno board. Branch here for convenience: