| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <19ba662feeb93157bc8a03fb0b11cb5f2eca5e40.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:12:39 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: virtio-comment@...ts.linux.dev, hch@...radead.org, Claire Chang
<tientzu@...omium.org>, linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob
Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Jörg Roedel
<joro@...tes.org>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, graf@...zon.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] content: Add VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB to negotiate use
of SWIOTLB bounce buffers
On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 10:54 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > + If a the device transport provides a software IOTLB bounce buffer,
> > + addresses within its range are not subject to the requirements of
> > + VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM as they are considered to be ``on-device''.
>
> I don't get this part. the system designers currently have a choice
> whether to have these controlled by VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM or not.
> with PCI, for example, BAR on the same device is naturally not
> behind an iommu.
In the PCI case this *is* a BAR on the same device, and is naturally
not behind an IOMMU as you say. This is just stating the obvious, for
clarity.
For virtio-mmio it also isn't translated by an IOMMU; that was the
*point* of the `restricted-dma-pool` support.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5069 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists