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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:25:50 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
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 2021-11-16 14:21, John Garry wrote:
> 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?

Hey John - as it happens I started hacking on that in earnest about half 
an hour ago, aiming to get something out later this week.

Cheers,
Robin.

> 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