On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 16:05 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Short answer - platforms need a way to discover, and express different > security requirements of different devices. Sure. PLATFORMS need that. Do not let it go anywhere near your device drivers. Including the virtio drivers. > If they continue to lack that, we'll need a custom API in virtio, > and while this seems a bit less elegant, I would not see that as > the end of the world at all, there are not that many virtio drivers. No. If they continue to lack that, we fix them. This is a *platform* issue. The DMA API shall do the right thing. Do not second-guess it. (From the other mail) > > > OK so I guess that means we should prefer a transport-specific > > > interface in virtio-pci then. > > > > Why? > > Because you said you are doing something device tree specific for > ARM, aren't you? Nonono. The ARM platform code might do that, and the DMA API on ARM *might* give you I/O virtual addresses that look a lot like the physical addresses you asked it to map. That's none of your business. Drivers use DMA API. No more talky. -- dwmw2
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
