[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025022123-hacker-skiing-1fda@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 07:21:31 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Joshua Peraza <jperaza@...gle.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, dtor@...gle.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, helgaas@...nel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jean-philippe@...aro.org,
joro@...tes.org, jsbarnes@...gle.com, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
oohall@...il.com, pavel@...x.de, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
rafael@...nel.org, rajatja@...gle.com, rajatxjain@...il.com,
will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [v9 PATCH 2/2] PCI: Rename pci_dev->untrusted to
pci_dev->requires_dma_protection
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:09:41AM +0000, Joshua Peraza wrote:
> From: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
>
> Rename the field to make it more clear, that the device can execute DMA
> attacks on the system, and thus the system may need protection from
> such attacks from this device.
It's not "may", it is "must" as that is what the kernel code does.
Anyway, no objection from me on this now, it makes more sense overall,
thanks for sticking with it.
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists