RE: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:05:26 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>, "joro@xxxxxxxxxx" <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>, "alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx" <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>, "robin.murphy@xxxxxxx" <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>, "baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx" <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>, "eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx" <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>, "kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "peterx@xxxxxxxxxx" <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>, "jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx" <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>, "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx" <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "lulu@xxxxxxxxxx" <lulu@xxxxxxxxxx>, "suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx" <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>, "iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHZ7GCNzWxyrCHnVkqPkBvqOzEqrbAsylxggBvMMACAA6lO8IAAN00AgAFSUcCAAA9FEA==
Thread-topic: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains

> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:53 PM
> >
> > This is why I wanted to get rid of this bad mechanism going forward.
> >
> > Manually created hwpt should have a manual specification of cc and
> > then we don't have so many problems.
> >

Actually I don't see much difference between manual specification of
cc vs. indirect specification of cc via specified idev in hwpt_alloc. What
really matters is how we want to deal with the compatibility in the
following attach path.

References:
- [PATCH v4 00/17] iommufd: Add nesting infrastructure
  - From: Yi Liu
- [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
  - From: Yi Liu
- RE: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
  - From: Tian, Kevin
- Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
  - From: Nicolin Chen
- RE: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
  - From: Tian, Kevin
- Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
  - From: Jason Gunthorpe

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v4 10/17] iommufd: Support IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC allocation with user data
Next by Date: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] Introduce mseal() syscall
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains
Next by thread: [PATCH v4 13/17] iommufd/selftest: Add nested domain allocation for mock domain
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Wireless] [Linux Kernel] [ATH6KL] [Linux Bluetooth] [Linux Netdev] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [IDE] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux ATA RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper]