linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 08/12] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF

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: <BN9PR11MB527686C925E33E0DCDF261CB8C13A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 02:35:40 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 08/12] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:41 PM
> 
> On 2023/8/9 8:02, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:43 AM
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 08:16:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there plan to introduce further error in the future? otherwise this
> should
> >>> be void.
> >>>
> >>> btw the work queue is only for sva. If there is no other caller this can be
> >>> just kept in iommu-sva.c. No need to create a helper.
> >>
> >> I think more than just SVA will need a work queue context to process
> >> their faults.
> >>
> >
> > then this series needs more work. Currently the abstraction doesn't
> > include workqueue in the common fault reporting layer.
> 
> Do you mind elaborate a bit here? workqueue is a basic infrastructure in
> the fault handling framework, but it lets the consumers choose to use
> it, or not to.
> 

My understanding of Jason's comment was to make the workqueue the
default path instead of being opted by the consumer.. that is my 1st
impression but might be wrong...