linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 10/26] gunyah: vm_mgr: Introduce basic VM Manager

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]

Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 19:06:28 -0600
From:   Alex Elder <alex.elder@...aro.org>
To:     Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Murali Nalajala <quic_mnalajal@...cinc.com>,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <quic_svaddagi@...cinc.com>,
        Carl van Schaik <quic_cvanscha@...cinc.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 10/26] gunyah: vm_mgr: Introduce basic VM Manager

On 2/24/23 4:48 PM, Elliot Berman wrote:
> I'd be open to making GH_CREATE_VM take a struct argument today, but I 
> really don't know what size or what needs to be in that struct. My hope 
> is that we can get away with just an integer for future needs. If 
> integer doesn't suit, then new ioctl would need to be created. I think 
> there's same problem if I pick some struct today (the struct may not 
> suit tomorrow and we need to create new ioctl for the new struct).

I'd like someone to back me up (or tell me I'm wrong), but...

I think you can still pass a void in/out pointer, which can
be interpreted in an IOCTL-specific way, as long as it can
be unambiguously processed.

So if you passed a non-null pointer, what it referred to
could contain a key that defines the way to interpret it.

You can't take away a behavior you've once supported, but I
*think* you can add a new behavior (with a new structure
that identifies itself).

So if that is correct, you can extend a single IOCTL.  But
sadly I can't tell you I'm sure this is correct.

					-Alex