linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH hyperv-next 5/6] arch, drivers: Add device struct bitfield to not bounce-buffer

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: <e169cb52-8f2d-4ac5-b667-87c3357c11a7@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:16:00 -0700
From: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
 andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de, bp@...en8.de,
 catalin.marinas@....com, corbet@....net, dakr@...nel.org,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, decui@...rosoft.com,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, hpa@...or.com,
 James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
 kys@...rosoft.com, leon@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de, luto@...nel.org,
 m.szyprowski@...sung.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, mingo@...hat.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
 wei.liu@...nel.org, will@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 apais@...rosoft.com, benhill@...rosoft.com, bperkins@...rosoft.com,
 sunilmut@...rosoft.com, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH hyperv-next 5/6] arch, drivers: Add device struct bitfield
 to not bounce-buffer



On 4/10/2025 12:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 09:44:03AM -0700, Roman Kisel wrote:
>> Do you feel this is shoehorned in `struct device`? I couldn't find an
>> appropriate private (== opaque pointer) part in the structure to store
>> that bit (`struct device_private` wouldn't fit the bill) and looked like
>> adding it to the struct itself would do no harm. However, my read of the
>> room is that folks see that as dubious :)
> 
> We'll need per-device information.  But it is much higher level than a
> need bounce buffer flag.
> 

I see, thanks for the explanation!

-- 
Thank you,
Roman