linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommufd/viommu: Add a default_viommu_ops for IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE

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: <20241017185251.GT3559746@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:52:51 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@...el.com, will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org,
	suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, eric.auger@...hat.com,
	jean-philippe@...aro.org, mdf@...nel.org, mshavit@...gle.com,
	shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, smostafa@...gle.com,
	yi.l.liu@...el.com, aik@....com, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommufd/viommu: Add a default_viommu_ops for
 IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_DEFAULT

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:50:44AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 03:47:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:38:14AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > An IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_DEFAULT doesn't need a free() op since the core can
> > > free everything in the destroy(). Now with the new vDEVICE structure, it
> > > might want to allocate its own vDEVICEs.
> > > 
> > > Add a default_viommu_ops for driver to hook ops for default vIOMMUs.
> > 
> > Why? arm_smmu is now creating its own viommu object, so who will use
> > this?
> > 
> > Do we have any use for the default mode? It is already a bit
> > confusing, can we just drop it?
> 
> Hmm, that would make the default model completely useless..
> 
> Should we unsupport a default viommu allocation?

This is my ask?

Jason