linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] iommu/sva: Add iommu_sva

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: <8b4b22d7-3d56-d9b7-cfef-3479001c7cf4@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 10:18:14 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] iommu/sva: Add iommu_sva_domain support

On 2022/5/24 17:44, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:13 PM
>>> @@ -254,6 +259,7 @@ struct iommu_ops {
>>>    	int (*def_domain_type)(struct device *dev);
>>>
>>>    	const struct iommu_domain_ops *default_domain_ops;
>>> +	const struct iommu_domain_ops *sva_domain_ops;
>>
>> Per Joerg's comment in anther thread,
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/YodVJ7ervpIdWfg+@8bytes.org/
>>
>> adding a sva_domain_ops here is not the right way to go.
>>
>> If no objection, I will make the sva domain go through the
>> generic domain_alloc/free() callbacks in the next version.
>>
> 
> suppose it's just back to what v1-v6 did which all registered the ops
> in domain_alloc() callback?

Yes.

Best regards,
baolu