linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 01/16] iommu: Move iommu fault data to linux/iommu.h

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240125134337.GN1455070@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:43:37 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Longfang Liu <liulongfang@...wei.com>,
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/16] iommu: Move iommu fault data to linux/iommu.h

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 01:42:53PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > The iommu fault data is currently defined in uapi/linux/iommu.h, but is
> > only used inside the iommu subsystem. Move it to linux/iommu.h, where it
> > will be more accessible to kernel drivers.
> > 
> > With this done, uapi/linux/iommu.h becomes empty and can be removed from
> > the tree.
> 
> The reason for removing this [1] is that it is only being used by
> internal code in the kernel. What happens with usespace code that have
> used these definitions? Should we deprecate instead of just removing?

There was never an in-tree kernel implementation. Any userspace that
implemented this needs to decide on its own if it will continue to
support the non-mainline kernel and provide a copy of the definitions
itself..

(it was a process mistake to merge a uapi header without a
corresponding uapi implementation, sorry)

Jason