On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 01:53:48PM -0800, Joshua Peraza wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:43 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Wow this is a slow discussion :) > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 07:30:22PM +0000, Joshua Peraza wrote: > > > This patchset rebases two previously posted patches supporting > > > recognition of Microsoft's DmaProperty. > > > > > > v8: Joshua renames untrusted_dma to requires_dma_protection and updates > > > some comments, reducing use of the word "trust" to refer to PCI devices > > > and matching the word choice in Microsoft's documentation. > > > > So this is the "clarity"? I'm not sold, sorry. Again, did you look at > > the previous discussions we had about this name? We don't have to use > > Microsoft's term here as it is used differently by Linux today, right? > > If you really want to support the DmaProperty, why not just support that > > with a new bit as that's something different here, right? > > > > Again, look at what this is supposed to be conveying. They ability to > > DMA to anywhere isn't really the root issue here, or is it? What is the > > threat model you are trying to mitigate? > > > > > v7: Rajat updates a comment with Robin's suggestion. Joshua re-sends and > > > Greg requests clarity and documentation on why untrusted_dma is the > > > right name. > > > > > > v6: Rajat renames pci_dev_has_dma_property and links to Microsoft's > > > documentation in the commit message. Robin suggests clarifying a > > > comment. > > > > > > v5: Rajat changes the name to untrusted_dma. Bjorn suggesting changing > > > another function's name pci_acpi_check_for_dma_protection to > > > pci_dev_has_dma_property and seeks clarified documentation. > > > > > > v4: Rajat changes the name to poses_dma_risk. Christoph suggests this > > > name doesn't capture the intent as well as untrusted_dma and Rafael > > > agrees. > > > > > > v1,v2,v3: Greg suggests that (un)trusted is the wrong word for referring > > > to PCI devices, recommending a name something like "platform wants to > > > protect dma access for this device." > > > > Or is it? I said this when? Just how old is this patch series? > > > > confused, > > > > greg k-h > > (sorry if you're getting this again; re-sending as plain text) > > Sorry for the confusion! What do you think about the following for a > new cover letter? I really don't remember anymore, sorry. Try submitting the whole series again as I don't know what you wrote the first time here. thanks, greg "I get 1000 emails a day" k-h
