linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu instead of s2

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: <20250305192950.GA354511@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:29:50 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu
 instead of s2_parent

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:51:38AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:

> > I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple
> > instances.
> 
> Oh, I haven't thought about a !nest_parent S2 case.
> 
> A nest_parent case will not allow devices to attach the S2 but
> always to a proxy nested S1 as we discussed previously. So, I
> think the implementation could be very different?

It could, and that is what you show here

But also, it could be the same implementation.

Jason