linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 0/8] vhost-vdpa: add support for iommufd

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: <20231107105718-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2023 11:11:07 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>, jasowang@...hat.com,
        yi.l.liu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/8] vhost-vdpa: add support for iommufd

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 11:48:48AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 09:55:26AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 08:49:02AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > IMHO, this patch series needs to spend more time internally to Red Hat
> > > before it is presented to the community.
> > 
> > Just to add an example why I think this "internal review" is a bad idea
> > I seem to recall that someone internal to nvidia at some point
> > attempted to implement this already. The only output from that
> > work we have is that "it's tough" - no pointers to what's tough,
> > no code to study even as a bad path to follow.
> > And while Red Hat might be big, the virt team is rather smaller.
> 
> I don't think Nicolin got to a presentable code point.
> 
> But you can start to see the issues even in this series, like
> simulator is complicated. mlx5 is complicated. Deciding to omit those
> is one path. Come with a proposal and justification to take it out,
> not a patch with an unexplained #ifdef.

Right. Simulator I don't think we need to support, or at least
not necessarily to get this merged - it does not really
benefit from any iommufd features.