linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mctp pcc: Check before sending MCTP PCC response ACK

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: <fb13bbc9-9afb-4c69-bbd6-354db395813e@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:44:28 -0500
From: Adam Young <admiyo@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
To: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>, admiyo@...amperecomputing.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>,
 Matt Johnston <matt@...econstruct.com.au>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
 Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] mctp pcc: Check before sending MCTP PCC response
 ACK

On 11/3/24 22:17, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>>
>> I could make a further  change and allow the driver to request the 
>> remapped memory segment from the pcc layer, and couple  to the 
>> memory-remap to the client/channel.  It seems like that code, too, 
>> should be in the common layer.  However most drivers would not know 
>> to use  this function yet, so the mechanism would have to be 
>> optional, and only clean up if called this way.
> I agree this method.
> Don't remap twice for one shared memory.
> This remaping is reasonable in PCC layer. We can let PCC client to 
> decide if PCC layer does remap and then they use it directly.
> For new driver like the driver you are uploading, driver can give PCC 
> one flag to tell PCC layer remap when request channel.
> For old PCC client driver, do not send this flag, PPC layer do not 
> remap. So no any impact on them. 

I think we are actually in agreement here.  No double mapping, but the 
driver MAY request the mapping happen in the PCC layer. No impact on 
existing drivers.