From: Don Dutile <ddutile-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Alex Williamson
<alex.williamson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
drjones-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
jason-NLaQJdtUoK4Be96aLqz0jA@public.gmane.org,
kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
marc.zyngier-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org,
benh-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
punit.agrawal-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
pranav.sawargaonkar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org,
dwmw-vV1OtcyAfmbQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org,
jcm-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org,
Christoffer Dall
<christoffer.dall-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
eric.auger.pro-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:25:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5825F0F5.3070001@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161111085056.4cf8989d-1yVPhWWZRC1BDLzU/O5InQ@public.gmane.org>
On 11/11/2016 10:50 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100
> Joerg Roedel <joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI
>>> doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for
>>> that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing the IOMMU API
>>> should describe that reserved range and reject mappings to it.
>>
>> The drivers actually allow mappings to the MSI region via the IOMMU-API,
>> and I think it should stay this way also for other reserved ranges.
>> Address space management is done by the IOMMU-API user already (and has
>> to be done there nowadays), be it a DMA-API implementation which just
>> reserves these regions in its address space allocator or be it VFIO with
>> QEMU, which don't map RAM there anyway. So there is no point of checking
>> this again in the IOMMU drivers and we can keep that out of the
>> mapping/unmapping fast-path.
>
> It's really just a happenstance that we don't map RAM over the x86 MSI
> range though. That property really can't be guaranteed once we mix
> architectures, such as running an aarch64 VM on x86 host via TCG.
> AIUI, the MSI range is actually handled differently than other DMA
> ranges, so a iommu_map() overlapping a range that the iommu cannot map
> should fail just like an attempt to map beyond the address width of the
> iommu.
>
+1. As was stated at Plumbers, x86 MSI is in a fixed, hw location, so:
1) that memory space is never a valid page to the system to be used for IOVA,
therefore, nothing to micro-manage in the iommu mapping (fast) path.
2) migration btwn different systems isn't an issue b/c all x86 systems have this mapping.
3) ACS resolves DMA writes to mem going to a device(-mmio space).
For aarch64, without such a 'fixed' MSI location, whatever hole/used-space-struct
concept that is contrived for MSI (DMA) writes on aarch64 won't guarantee migration
failure across mixed aarch64 systems (migrate guest-G from sys-vendor-A to
sys-vendor-B; sys-vendor-A has MSI at addr-A; sys-vendor-B has MSI at addr-B).
Without agreement, migration only possilbe across the same systems (can even
be broken btwn two sytems from same vendor). ACS in the PCIe path handles
the iova->dev-mmio collision problem. q.e.d.
ergo, my proposal to put MSI space as the upper-most, space of any system....
FFFF.FFFF.FFFE0.0000 ... and hw drops the upper 1's/F's, and uses that for MSI.
Allows it to vary on each system based on max-memory. pseudo-fixed, but not
right smack in the middle of mem-space.
There is an inverse scenario for host phys addr's as well:
Wiring the upper-most bit of HPA to be 1==mmio, 0=mem simplifies a lot of
design issues in the cores & chipsets as well. Alpha-EV6, case in point
(18+ yr old design decision). another q.e.d.
I hate to admit it, but jcm has it right wrt 'fixed sys addr map', at least in this IO area.
>>> For PCI devices userspace can examine the topology of the iommu group
>>> and exclude MMIO ranges of peer devices based on the BARs, which are
>>> exposed in various places, pci-sysfs as well as /proc/iomem. For
>>> non-PCI or MSI controllers... ???
>>
>> Right, the hardware resources can be examined. But maybe this can be
>> extended to also cover RMRR ranges? Then we would be able to assign
>> devices with RMRR mappings to guests.
>
> RMRRs are special in a different way, the VT-d spec requires that the
> OS honor RMRRs, the user has no responsibility (and currently no
> visibility) to make that same arrangement. In order to potentially
> protect the physical host platform, the iommu drivers should prevent a
> user from remapping RMRRS. Maybe there needs to be a different
> interface used by untrusted users vs in-kernel drivers, but I think the
> kernel really needs to be defensive in the case of user mappings, which
> is where the IOMMU API is rooted. Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ddutile@redhat.com (Don Dutile)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:25:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5825F0F5.3070001@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161111085056.4cf8989d@t450s.home>
On 11/11/2016 10:50 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100
> Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI
>>> doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for
>>> that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing the IOMMU API
>>> should describe that reserved range and reject mappings to it.
>>
>> The drivers actually allow mappings to the MSI region via the IOMMU-API,
>> and I think it should stay this way also for other reserved ranges.
>> Address space management is done by the IOMMU-API user already (and has
>> to be done there nowadays), be it a DMA-API implementation which just
>> reserves these regions in its address space allocator or be it VFIO with
>> QEMU, which don't map RAM there anyway. So there is no point of checking
>> this again in the IOMMU drivers and we can keep that out of the
>> mapping/unmapping fast-path.
>
> It's really just a happenstance that we don't map RAM over the x86 MSI
> range though. That property really can't be guaranteed once we mix
> architectures, such as running an aarch64 VM on x86 host via TCG.
> AIUI, the MSI range is actually handled differently than other DMA
> ranges, so a iommu_map() overlapping a range that the iommu cannot map
> should fail just like an attempt to map beyond the address width of the
> iommu.
>
+1. As was stated at Plumbers, x86 MSI is in a fixed, hw location, so:
1) that memory space is never a valid page to the system to be used for IOVA,
therefore, nothing to micro-manage in the iommu mapping (fast) path.
2) migration btwn different systems isn't an issue b/c all x86 systems have this mapping.
3) ACS resolves DMA writes to mem going to a device(-mmio space).
For aarch64, without such a 'fixed' MSI location, whatever hole/used-space-struct
concept that is contrived for MSI (DMA) writes on aarch64 won't guarantee migration
failure across mixed aarch64 systems (migrate guest-G from sys-vendor-A to
sys-vendor-B; sys-vendor-A has MSI at addr-A; sys-vendor-B has MSI at addr-B).
Without agreement, migration only possilbe across the same systems (can even
be broken btwn two sytems from same vendor). ACS in the PCIe path handles
the iova->dev-mmio collision problem. q.e.d.
ergo, my proposal to put MSI space as the upper-most, space of any system....
FFFF.FFFF.FFFE0.0000 ... and hw drops the upper 1's/F's, and uses that for MSI.
Allows it to vary on each system based on max-memory. pseudo-fixed, but not
right smack in the middle of mem-space.
There is an inverse scenario for host phys addr's as well:
Wiring the upper-most bit of HPA to be 1==mmio, 0=mem simplifies a lot of
design issues in the cores & chipsets as well. Alpha-EV6, case in point
(18+ yr old design decision). another q.e.d.
I hate to admit it, but jcm has it right wrt 'fixed sys addr map', at least in this IO area.
>>> For PCI devices userspace can examine the topology of the iommu group
>>> and exclude MMIO ranges of peer devices based on the BARs, which are
>>> exposed in various places, pci-sysfs as well as /proc/iomem. For
>>> non-PCI or MSI controllers... ???
>>
>> Right, the hardware resources can be examined. But maybe this can be
>> extended to also cover RMRR ranges? Then we would be able to assign
>> devices with RMRR mappings to guests.
>
> RMRRs are special in a different way, the VT-d spec requires that the
> OS honor RMRRs, the user has no responsibility (and currently no
> visibility) to make that same arrangement. In order to potentially
> protect the physical host platform, the iommu drivers should prevent a
> user from remapping RMRRS. Maybe there needs to be a different
> interface used by untrusted users vs in-kernel drivers, but I think the
> kernel really needs to be defensive in the case of user mappings, which
> is where the IOMMU API is rooted. Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
drjones@redhat.com,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
jason@lakedaemon.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, diana.craciun@nxp.com,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, pranav.sawargaonkar@gmail.com,
arnd@arndb.de, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, jcm@redhat.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, robin.murphy@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:25:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5825F0F5.3070001@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161111085056.4cf8989d@t450s.home>
On 11/11/2016 10:50 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:19:44 +0100
> Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:46:01AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> In the case of x86, we know that DMA mappings overlapping the MSI
>>> doorbells won't be translated correctly, it's not a valid mapping for
>>> that range, and therefore the iommu driver backing the IOMMU API
>>> should describe that reserved range and reject mappings to it.
>>
>> The drivers actually allow mappings to the MSI region via the IOMMU-API,
>> and I think it should stay this way also for other reserved ranges.
>> Address space management is done by the IOMMU-API user already (and has
>> to be done there nowadays), be it a DMA-API implementation which just
>> reserves these regions in its address space allocator or be it VFIO with
>> QEMU, which don't map RAM there anyway. So there is no point of checking
>> this again in the IOMMU drivers and we can keep that out of the
>> mapping/unmapping fast-path.
>
> It's really just a happenstance that we don't map RAM over the x86 MSI
> range though. That property really can't be guaranteed once we mix
> architectures, such as running an aarch64 VM on x86 host via TCG.
> AIUI, the MSI range is actually handled differently than other DMA
> ranges, so a iommu_map() overlapping a range that the iommu cannot map
> should fail just like an attempt to map beyond the address width of the
> iommu.
>
+1. As was stated at Plumbers, x86 MSI is in a fixed, hw location, so:
1) that memory space is never a valid page to the system to be used for IOVA,
therefore, nothing to micro-manage in the iommu mapping (fast) path.
2) migration btwn different systems isn't an issue b/c all x86 systems have this mapping.
3) ACS resolves DMA writes to mem going to a device(-mmio space).
For aarch64, without such a 'fixed' MSI location, whatever hole/used-space-struct
concept that is contrived for MSI (DMA) writes on aarch64 won't guarantee migration
failure across mixed aarch64 systems (migrate guest-G from sys-vendor-A to
sys-vendor-B; sys-vendor-A has MSI at addr-A; sys-vendor-B has MSI at addr-B).
Without agreement, migration only possilbe across the same systems (can even
be broken btwn two sytems from same vendor). ACS in the PCIe path handles
the iova->dev-mmio collision problem. q.e.d.
ergo, my proposal to put MSI space as the upper-most, space of any system....
FFFF.FFFF.FFFE0.0000 ... and hw drops the upper 1's/F's, and uses that for MSI.
Allows it to vary on each system based on max-memory. pseudo-fixed, but not
right smack in the middle of mem-space.
There is an inverse scenario for host phys addr's as well:
Wiring the upper-most bit of HPA to be 1==mmio, 0=mem simplifies a lot of
design issues in the cores & chipsets as well. Alpha-EV6, case in point
(18+ yr old design decision). another q.e.d.
I hate to admit it, but jcm has it right wrt 'fixed sys addr map', at least in this IO area.
>>> For PCI devices userspace can examine the topology of the iommu group
>>> and exclude MMIO ranges of peer devices based on the BARs, which are
>>> exposed in various places, pci-sysfs as well as /proc/iomem. For
>>> non-PCI or MSI controllers... ???
>>
>> Right, the hardware resources can be examined. But maybe this can be
>> extended to also cover RMRR ranges? Then we would be able to assign
>> devices with RMRR mappings to guests.
>
> RMRRs are special in a different way, the VT-d spec requires that the
> OS honor RMRRs, the user has no responsibility (and currently no
> visibility) to make that same arrangement. In order to potentially
> protect the physical host platform, the iommu drivers should prevent a
> user from remapping RMRRS. Maybe there needs to be a different
> interface used by untrusted users vs in-kernel drivers, but I think the
> kernel really needs to be defensive in the case of user mappings, which
> is where the IOMMU API is rooted. Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-11 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 119+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-03 21:39 [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II) Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
[not found] ` <1478209178-3009-1-git-send-email-eric.auger-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 1/8] vfio: fix vfio_info_cap_add/shift Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 2/8] iommu/iova: fix __alloc_and_insert_iova_range Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 3/8] iommu/dma: Allow MSI-only cookies Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 5/8] vfio/type1: Introduce RESV_IOVA_RANGE capability Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 8/8] iommu/arm-smmu: implement add_reserved_regions callback Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` Eric Auger
2016-11-04 4:02 ` [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II) Alex Williamson
2016-11-04 4:02 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-04 4:02 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-08 2:45 ` Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II)) Will Deacon
2016-11-08 2:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 14:27 ` Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe Auger Eric
2016-11-08 14:27 ` Auger Eric
[not found] ` <dae12190-1eb6-20a9-5740-9e5be8bb65fc-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-08 17:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 17:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 17:54 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20161108175457.GK20591-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-08 19:02 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-08 19:02 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-08 19:02 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-08 19:10 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 19:10 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <5822214F.2070500-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 7:43 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-09 7:43 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-09 7:43 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-08 16:02 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-08 16:02 ` Don Dutile
[not found] ` <20161108024559.GA20591-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-08 20:29 ` Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe (was: Re: [RFC 0/8] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64 (Alt II)) Christoffer Dall
2016-11-08 20:29 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-11-08 20:29 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-11-08 23:35 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-08 23:35 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-08 23:35 ` Alex Williamson
[not found] ` <20161108163508.1bcae0c2-1yVPhWWZRC1BDLzU/O5InQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 2:52 ` Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe Don Dutile
2016-11-09 2:52 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-09 2:52 ` Don Dutile
[not found] ` <58228F71.6020108-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 17:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 17:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 17:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 18:59 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-09 18:59 ` Don Dutile
[not found] ` <582371FB.2040808-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 19:23 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-11-09 19:23 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-11-09 19:23 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-11-09 20:01 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 20:01 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 20:01 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 14:40 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-10 14:40 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <20161110144007.GC2078-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-10 17:07 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 17:07 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 17:07 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 20:31 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 20:31 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20161109203145.GO17771-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 22:17 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 22:17 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 22:17 ` Alex Williamson
[not found] ` <20161109151709.74927f83-1yVPhWWZRC1BDLzU/O5InQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 22:25 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 22:25 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 22:25 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20161109222522.GS17771-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 23:24 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 23:24 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 23:24 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 23:38 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-09 23:38 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20161109233847.GT17771-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-09 23:59 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 23:59 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-09 23:59 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 0:14 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-10 0:14 ` Auger Eric
[not found] ` <83b6440a-31eb-c1b4-642c-a4c311f37ef2-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-10 0:55 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 0:55 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 0:55 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 2:01 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-10 2:01 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <20161110020130.GA19108-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-10 11:14 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-10 11:14 ` Auger Eric
2016-11-10 11:14 ` Auger Eric
[not found] ` <ddd8af9d-ad8f-78d8-3048-3d640b74470e-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-10 17:46 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 17:46 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-10 17:46 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-11 11:19 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-11 11:19 ` Joerg Roedel
[not found] ` <20161111111944.GO2078-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-11 15:50 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-11 15:50 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-11 15:50 ` Alex Williamson
[not found] ` <20161111085056.4cf8989d-1yVPhWWZRC1BDLzU/O5InQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-11 16:05 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-11 16:05 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-11 16:05 ` Alex Williamson
2016-11-14 15:19 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-14 15:19 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-11 16:25 ` Don Dutile [this message]
2016-11-11 16:25 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-11 16:25 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-11 16:00 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-11 16:00 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-11 16:00 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-10 14:52 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-10 14:52 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-09 20:11 ` Robin Murphy
2016-11-09 20:11 ` Robin Murphy
[not found] ` <e59e9a17-e943-a227-5ea4-d028232155a8-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-10 15:18 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-10 15:18 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-10 15:18 ` Joerg Roedel
2016-11-21 5:13 ` Jon Masters
2016-11-21 5:13 ` Jon Masters
2016-11-21 5:13 ` Jon Masters
[not found] ` <83d7bf8e-1aa9-b61b-4e83-ba9da1926d19-Zp4isUonpHBD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-23 20:12 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-23 20:12 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-23 20:12 ` Don Dutile
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 4/8] iommu: Add a list of iommu_reserved_region in iommu_domain Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 6/8] iommu: Handle the list of reserved regions Eric Auger
2016-11-03 21:39 ` [RFC 7/8] iommu/vt-d: Implement add_reserved_regions callback Eric Auger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5825F0F5.3070001@redhat.com \
--to=ddutile-h+wxahxf7alqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=alex.williamson-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org \
--cc=benh-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=christoffer.dall-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=drjones-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dwmw-vV1OtcyAfmbQXOPxS62xeg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=eric.auger.pro-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jason-NLaQJdtUoK4Be96aLqz0jA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jcm-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=pranav.sawargaonkar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=punit.agrawal-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.