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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:51:03 +0000 From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com> CC: "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>, "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>, "lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>, "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, "yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>, "Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>, "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>, "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>, "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com> Subject: RE: [RFC 01/20] iommu/iommufd: Add /dev/iommu core > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:42 PM > > - Delete the iommufd_ctx->lock. Use RCU to protect load, erase/alloc does > not need locking (order it properly too, it is in the wrong order), and > don't check for duplicate devices or dev_cookie duplication, that > is user error and is harmless to the kernel. > I'm confused here. yes it's user error, but we check so many user errors and then return -EINVAL, -EBUSY, etc. Why is this one special?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists