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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 12:18:15 +0800 From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Andrey Zhadchenko <andrey.zhadchenko@...tuozzo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, eperezma@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] vdpa: add bind_mm callback 在 2022/12/16 16:17, Stefano Garzarella 写道: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 02:37:45PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:30 AM Stefano Garzarella >> <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote: >>> >>> This new optional callback is used to bind the device to a specific >>> address space so the vDPA framework can use VA when this callback >>> is implemented. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> >>> --- >>> include/linux/vdpa.h | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/vdpa.h b/include/linux/vdpa.h >>> index 6d0f5e4e82c2..34388e21ef3f 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/vdpa.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/vdpa.h >>> @@ -282,6 +282,12 @@ struct vdpa_map_file { >>> * @iova: iova to be unmapped >>> * @size: size of the area >>> * Returns integer: success (0) or >>> error (< 0) >>> + * @bind_mm: Bind the device to a specific >>> address space >>> + * so the vDPA framework can use VA >>> when this >>> + * callback is implemented. (optional) >>> + * @vdev: vdpa device >>> + * @mm: address space to bind >> >> Do we need an unbind or did a NULL mm mean unbind? > > Yep, your comment in patch 6 makes it necessary. I will add it! > >> >>> + * @owner: process that owns the >>> address space >> >> Any reason we need the task_struct here? > > Mainly to attach to kthread to the process cgroups, but that part is > still in TODO since I need to understand it better. Ok I see. > > Maybe we can remove the task_struct here and use `current` directly in > the callback. Yes, it's easier to start without cgroup and we can add it on top. Thanks > > Thanks, > Stefano >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists