linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] iommu: Introduce a new iommu_group_replace

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: <58837041-c0ea-2c65-4ed5-6b2d2189415e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:33:44 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, jgg@...dia.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] iommu: Introduce a new
 iommu_group_replace_domain() API

On 2023/2/3 3:14, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 06:21:20PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 2023/2/2 15:05, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * iommu_group_replace_domain - replace the domain that a group is attached to
>>> + * @new_domain: new IOMMU domain to replace with
>>> + * @group: IOMMU group that will be attached to the new domain
>>> + *
>>> + * This API allows the group to switch domains without being forced to go to
>>> + * the blocking domain in-between.
>>> + *
>>> + * If the attached domain is a core domain (e.g. a default_domain), it will act
>>> + * just like the iommu_attach_group().
>> I am not following above two lines. Why and how could iommufd set a
>> core domain to an iommu_group?
> Perhaps this isn't the best narrative. What it's supposed to say
> is that this function acts as an iommu_attach_group() call if the
> device is "detached", yet we have changed the semantics about the
> word "detach". So, what should the correct way to write such a
> note?

How could this interface be used as detaching a domain from a group?
Even it could be used, doesn't it act as an iommu_detach_group()?

Best regards,
baolu