linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] iommu: Some IOVA code reorganisation

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]

Message-ID: <cdb502c5-4896-385b-8872-f4f20e9c7e34@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:21:09 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>
CC:     <joro@...tes.org>, <mst@...hat.com>, <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        <xieyongji@...edance.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] iommu: Some IOVA code reorganisation

On 04/10/2021 12:44, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:01:52PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> The IOVA domain structure is a bit overloaded, holding:
>> - IOVA tree management
>> - FQ control
>> - IOVA rcache memories
>>
>> Indeed only a couple of IOVA users use the rcache, and only dma-iommu.c
>> uses the FQ feature.
>>
>> This series separates out that structure. In addition, it moves the FQ
>> code into dma-iommu.c . This is not strictly necessary, but it does make
>> it easier for the FQ domain lookup the rcache domain.
>>
>> The rcache code stays where it is, as it may be reworked in future, so
>> there is not much point in relocating and then discarding.
>>
>> This topic was initially discussed and suggested (I think) by Robin here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1d06eda1-9961-d023-f5e7-fe87e768f067@arm.com/
> It would be useful to have Robin's Ack on patches 2-4. The implementation
> looks straightforward to me, but the thread above isn't very clear about
> what is being suggested.

Hi Robin,

Just wondering if you had made any progress on your FQ code rework or 
your own re-org?

I wasn't planning on progressing 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1626259003-201303-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/ 
until this is done first (and that is still a big issue), even though 
not strictly necessary.

Thanks,
John