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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250410072150.GA32563@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:21:50 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
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, hch@....de, 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 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.