linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 9/9] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Implement DXGSYNCFILE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YgJh8kdz47wmZJxH@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Tue, 8 Feb 2022 13:28:34 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Iouri Tarassov <iourit@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        spronovo@...rosoft.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        jenatali@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 9/9] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Implement DXGSYNCFILE

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 04:35:55PM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote:
> 
> On 1/17/2022 1:35 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:34 AM Iouri Tarassov
> > <iourit@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > btw another idea I had over the w/e: Another option might be to allow
> > different backends for sync_file, and then making sure that you cannot
> > ever mix dma_fence and hv_dxg_fence type sync_file up (in e.g. the
> > merge ioctl).
> > 
> > The issue is that fundamentally dma_fence and memory fences (or umf
> > for userspace memory fences as we tend to call them) aren't
> > compatible, but some of the interop plans we have is to allow stuffing
> > either of them into fence container objects like sync_file. So going
> > that route for wddm monitored fence support too could be a really
> > future-proof approach, plus it'd allow you to still share the
> > sync_file interface code. Not that it's going to be much code sharing,
> > since all the implementation code needs to be distinct.
> > -Daniel
> 
> Thanks Daniel!
> 
> I will remove the patch for dxgsyncfile from the next set of upstream
> patches.
> 
> It will be added later after a re-design.

Yeah sounds like a good plan forward to not hold up everything else
meanwhile.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch