[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220224004718.GE409228@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:47:18 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
saeedm@...dia.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, leonro@...dia.com,
kwankhede@...dia.com, mgurtovoy@...dia.com, maorg@...dia.com,
cohuck@...hat.com, ashok.raj@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 mlx5-next 10/15] vfio: Extend the device migration
protocol with RUNNING_P2P
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:42:48AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:57:11 +0200
> Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/vfio.h b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > index 3bbadcdbc9c8..3176cb5d4464 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct vfio_device {
> > struct vfio_group *group;
> > struct vfio_device_set *dev_set;
> > struct list_head dev_set_list;
> > + unsigned int migration_flags;
>
> Maybe paranoia, but should we sanity test this in __vfio_register_dev()
> to reinforce to driver authors that not all bit combinations are valid?
> Thanks,
I don't like sanity testing things that are easy to audit for..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists