linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Add set_dev

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

Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:48:08 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Add set_dev_pasid callbacks for default
 domain

On 2022/6/14 15:19, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:13 PM
>>
>> On 2022/6/14 13:36, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:48 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 2022/6/14 12:02, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> From: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:44 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This allows the upper layers to set a domain to a PASID of a device
>>>>>> if the PASID feature is supported by the IOMMU hardware. The typical
>>>>>> use cases are, for example, kernel DMA with PASID and hardware
>>>>>> assisted mediated device drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> why is it not part of the series for those use cases? There is no consumer
>>>>> of added callbacks in this patch...
>>>> It could be. I just wanted to maintain the integrity of Intel IOMMU
>>>> driver implementation.
>>> but let's not add dead code. and this patch is actually a right step
>>> simply from set_dev_pasid() p.o.v hence you should include in any
>>> series which first tries to use that interface.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's my intention. If it reviews well, we can include it in the
>> driver's implementation.
>>
> 
> Then you should make it clear in the first place. otherwise a patch
> like this implies a review for merge. 😊

Yeah! Will update this in the next version.

Best regards,
baolu