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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20240126142550.jeq2fszun5xvjelf@localhost>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:25:50 +0100
From: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.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 09:43:37AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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)
Thx.
This makes sense and its actually a good thing that we remove it.

Best
> 
> Jason

-- 

Joel Granados

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (660 bytes)