linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes

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]

Message-ID: <3e9e0f77-af41-54ef-f497-423f88fd3585@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:47:28 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, joro@...tes.org,
        will@...nel.org
Cc:     iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] iova: Some misc changes

On 2022-09-06 12:59, John Garry wrote:
> On 05/09/2022 16:51, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this? Since I got no review of patch #3 I assume that 
>>> it is not keenly welcome either.
>>
>> Yeah, I applied patch #3 to have a look at the result, but couldn't 
>> really convince myself either way - there are certainly a few 
>> functions in weirdly incongruous places at the moment, but afterwards 
>> we end up with certain other things in rather contrived order for the 
>> sake of avoiding declarations, so overall it just didn't feel 
>> objectively better to me. Plus the fact that rewriting nearly 2/3 of 
>> the file stands to make backporting tweaks or fixes unnecessarily 
>> painful is hard to overlook. 
> 
> Yeah, that was my main concern. But if it is going to be done, then now 
> is as good a time as ever...
> 
>> Hence I guess I'm leaning towards "worth trying to see how it looked, 
>> but let's not".
>>
> 
> ok, fine. But I do still feel that iova.c does need tidying to some 
> extent along these lines.
> 
>> As for the stubs, it seems that they're currently unused due to 
>> linkage issues with IOMMU_IOVA=m - if we want better compile-test 
>> coverage, I wonder if we couldn't replace the IS_ENABLED() with 
>> IS_REACHABLE() and restore some of the previously-conditional selects?
> 
> Sorry, but I am not familiar - what were some examples of 
> previously-conditional selects?

Commits 84db889e6d82 and c8a203647488 were the ones that most readily 
stood out from the current "select IOMMU_IOVA" lines.

Cheers,
Robin.