Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature

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

 





On 2020-06-19 11:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:29:56 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

But since this can be rewritten any time, let's go with the option
people already agree with, instead of more discussion.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with the patch as-is.

Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,



Which tree should this go through? Virtio? s390? >

Just another question. Do we want this backported? Do we need cc stable?

It does change behaviour of virtio-ccw devices; but then, it only
fences off configurations that would not have worked anyway.
Distributions should probably pick this; but I do not consider it
strictly a "fix" (more a mitigation for broken configurations), so I'm
not sure whether stable applies.

[..]


  int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
  {
  	int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
@@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
  	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
  		return 0;
+ if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
+		!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
+		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
+			 "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");

I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a
good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that

Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in
headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define
and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn.

much. An alternative would be:
"virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory,
aborting the device"

"virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ?

But no issue with keeping the current message.


If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to accept or not the device. The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch specific.

Regards,
Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux