From: Jike Song <jike.song@intel.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Yongji Xie <elohimes@gmail.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Kyle Mahlkuch <Kyle.Mahlkuch@ibm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Vlad Tsyrklevich <vlad@tsyrklevich.net>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/5] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:16:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59924B85.5040405@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ca2a4550-fb26-28db-0eea-a5940dfa612f@arm.com>
On 08/14/2017 09:12 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
>> comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
>
> While I now understand it's not the low-level thing I first thought it
> was, so my reasoning has changed, personally I don't like this approach
> any more than the previous one - it still smells of abusing external
> APIs to pass information from one part of VFIO to another (and it has
> the same conceptual problem of attributing something to interrupt
> sources that is actually a property of the interrupt target).
>
> Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
> kind of interrupt spoofing it could do by fiddling with the MSI-X
> message address/data it could simply do with a DMA write anyway, so the
> security argument doesn't stand up in general (sure, not all PCIe
> devices may be capable of arbitrary DMA, but that seems like more of a
> tenuous security-by-obscurity angle to me).
Hi Robin,
DMA writes will be translated (thereby censored) by DMA Remapping hardware,
while MSI/MSI-X will not. Is this different for non-x86?
--
Thanks,
Jike
> Besides, with Type1 IOMMU
> the fact that we've let a device be assigned at all means that this is
> already a non-issue (because either the hardware provides isolation or
> the user has explicitly accepted the consequences of an unsafe
> configuration) - from patch #4 that's apparently the same for SPAPR TCE,
> in which case it seems this flag doesn't even need to be propagated and
> could simply be assumed always.
>
> On the other hand, if the check is not so much to mitigate malicious
> guests attacking the system as to prevent dumb guests breaking
> themselves (e.g. if some or all of the MSI-X capability is actually
> emulated), then allowing things to sometimes go wrong on the grounds of
> an irrelevant hardware feature doesn't seem correct :/
>
> Robin.
>
>> On 07/08/17 17:25, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> This is a followup for "[PATCH kernel v4 0/6] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table"
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg152232.html
>>>
>>> This time it is using "caps" in IOMMU groups. The main question is if PCI
>>> bus flags or IOMMU domains are still better (and which one).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is some background:
>>>
>>> Current vfio-pci implementation disallows to mmap the page
>>> containing MSI-X table in case that users can write directly
>>> to MSI-X table and generate an incorrect MSIs.
>>>
>>> However, this will cause some performance issue when there
>>> are some critical device registers in the same page as the
>>> MSI-X table. We have to handle the mmio access to these
>>> registers in QEMU emulation rather than in guest.
>>>
>>> To solve this issue, this series allows to expose MSI-X table
>>> to userspace when hardware enables the capability of interrupt
>>> remapping which can ensure that a given PCI device can only
>>> shoot the MSIs assigned for it. And we introduce a new bus_flags
>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_MSI_REMAP to test this capability on PCI side
>>> for different archs.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is based on sha1
>>> 26c5cebfdb6c "Merge branch 'parisc-4.13-4' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux"
>>>
>>> Please comment. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Changelog:
>>>
>>> v5:
>>> * redid the whole thing via so-called IOMMU group capabilities
>>>
>>> v4:
>>> * rebased on recent upstream
>>> * got all 6 patches from v2 (v3 was missing some)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy (5):
>>> iommu: Add capabilities to a group
>>> iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if MSI controller enables IRQ
>>> remapping
>>> iommu/intel/amd: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if IRQ remapping is
>>> enabled
>>> powerpc/iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX
>>> vfio-pci: Allow to expose MSI-X table to userspace when safe
>>>
>>> include/linux/iommu.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/vfio.h | 1 +
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 1 +
>>> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c | 5 ++++-
>>> drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>> 9 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jike Song <jike.song-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Vlad Tsyrklevich <vlad-NIZqynvkaCU43zv7NVfAiQ@public.gmane.org>,
kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Alexey Kardashevskiy
<aik-sLpHqDYs0B2HXe+LvDLADg@public.gmane.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
Kyle Mahlkuch <Kyle.Mahlkuch-qyM6JfAXOaQ@public.gmane.org>,
Kirti Wankhede
<kwankhede-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org,
Yongji Xie <elohimes-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
<mauricfo-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Arvind Yadav
<arvind.yadav.cs-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
David Gibson
<david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/5] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:16:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59924B85.5040405@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ca2a4550-fb26-28db-0eea-a5940dfa612f-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
On 08/14/2017 09:12 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
>> comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
>
> While I now understand it's not the low-level thing I first thought it
> was, so my reasoning has changed, personally I don't like this approach
> any more than the previous one - it still smells of abusing external
> APIs to pass information from one part of VFIO to another (and it has
> the same conceptual problem of attributing something to interrupt
> sources that is actually a property of the interrupt target).
>
> Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
> kind of interrupt spoofing it could do by fiddling with the MSI-X
> message address/data it could simply do with a DMA write anyway, so the
> security argument doesn't stand up in general (sure, not all PCIe
> devices may be capable of arbitrary DMA, but that seems like more of a
> tenuous security-by-obscurity angle to me).
Hi Robin,
DMA writes will be translated (thereby censored) by DMA Remapping hardware,
while MSI/MSI-X will not. Is this different for non-x86?
--
Thanks,
Jike
> Besides, with Type1 IOMMU
> the fact that we've let a device be assigned at all means that this is
> already a non-issue (because either the hardware provides isolation or
> the user has explicitly accepted the consequences of an unsafe
> configuration) - from patch #4 that's apparently the same for SPAPR TCE,
> in which case it seems this flag doesn't even need to be propagated and
> could simply be assumed always.
>
> On the other hand, if the check is not so much to mitigate malicious
> guests attacking the system as to prevent dumb guests breaking
> themselves (e.g. if some or all of the MSI-X capability is actually
> emulated), then allowing things to sometimes go wrong on the grounds of
> an irrelevant hardware feature doesn't seem correct :/
>
> Robin.
>
>> On 07/08/17 17:25, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> This is a followup for "[PATCH kernel v4 0/6] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table"
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg152232.html
>>>
>>> This time it is using "caps" in IOMMU groups. The main question is if PCI
>>> bus flags or IOMMU domains are still better (and which one).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is some background:
>>>
>>> Current vfio-pci implementation disallows to mmap the page
>>> containing MSI-X table in case that users can write directly
>>> to MSI-X table and generate an incorrect MSIs.
>>>
>>> However, this will cause some performance issue when there
>>> are some critical device registers in the same page as the
>>> MSI-X table. We have to handle the mmio access to these
>>> registers in QEMU emulation rather than in guest.
>>>
>>> To solve this issue, this series allows to expose MSI-X table
>>> to userspace when hardware enables the capability of interrupt
>>> remapping which can ensure that a given PCI device can only
>>> shoot the MSIs assigned for it. And we introduce a new bus_flags
>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_MSI_REMAP to test this capability on PCI side
>>> for different archs.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is based on sha1
>>> 26c5cebfdb6c "Merge branch 'parisc-4.13-4' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux"
>>>
>>> Please comment. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Changelog:
>>>
>>> v5:
>>> * redid the whole thing via so-called IOMMU group capabilities
>>>
>>> v4:
>>> * rebased on recent upstream
>>> * got all 6 patches from v2 (v3 was missing some)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy (5):
>>> iommu: Add capabilities to a group
>>> iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if MSI controller enables IRQ
>>> remapping
>>> iommu/intel/amd: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if IRQ remapping is
>>> enabled
>>> powerpc/iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX
>>> vfio-pci: Allow to expose MSI-X table to userspace when safe
>>>
>>> include/linux/iommu.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/vfio.h | 1 +
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 1 +
>>> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c | 5 ++++-
>>> drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>> 9 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jike Song <jike.song@intel.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Yongji Xie <elohimes@gmail.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Kyle Mahlkuch <Kyle.Mahlkuch@ibm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Vlad Tsyrklevich <vlad@tsyrklevich.net>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/5] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:16:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59924B85.5040405@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ca2a4550-fb26-28db-0eea-a5940dfa612f@arm.com>
On 08/14/2017 09:12 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 14/08/17 10:45, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Is there anything to change besides those compiler errors and David's
>> comment in 5/5? Or the while patchset is too bad? Thanks.
>
> While I now understand it's not the low-level thing I first thought it
> was, so my reasoning has changed, personally I don't like this approach
> any more than the previous one - it still smells of abusing external
> APIs to pass information from one part of VFIO to another (and it has
> the same conceptual problem of attributing something to interrupt
> sources that is actually a property of the interrupt target).
>
> Taking a step back, though, why does vfio-pci perform this check in the
> first place? If a malicious guest already has control of a device, any
> kind of interrupt spoofing it could do by fiddling with the MSI-X
> message address/data it could simply do with a DMA write anyway, so the
> security argument doesn't stand up in general (sure, not all PCIe
> devices may be capable of arbitrary DMA, but that seems like more of a
> tenuous security-by-obscurity angle to me).
Hi Robin,
DMA writes will be translated (thereby censored) by DMA Remapping hardware,
while MSI/MSI-X will not. Is this different for non-x86?
--
Thanks,
Jike
> Besides, with Type1 IOMMU
> the fact that we've let a device be assigned at all means that this is
> already a non-issue (because either the hardware provides isolation or
> the user has explicitly accepted the consequences of an unsafe
> configuration) - from patch #4 that's apparently the same for SPAPR TCE,
> in which case it seems this flag doesn't even need to be propagated and
> could simply be assumed always.
>
> On the other hand, if the check is not so much to mitigate malicious
> guests attacking the system as to prevent dumb guests breaking
> themselves (e.g. if some or all of the MSI-X capability is actually
> emulated), then allowing things to sometimes go wrong on the grounds of
> an irrelevant hardware feature doesn't seem correct :/
>
> Robin.
>
>> On 07/08/17 17:25, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> This is a followup for "[PATCH kernel v4 0/6] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table"
>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg152232.html
>>>
>>> This time it is using "caps" in IOMMU groups. The main question is if PCI
>>> bus flags or IOMMU domains are still better (and which one).
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is some background:
>>>
>>> Current vfio-pci implementation disallows to mmap the page
>>> containing MSI-X table in case that users can write directly
>>> to MSI-X table and generate an incorrect MSIs.
>>>
>>> However, this will cause some performance issue when there
>>> are some critical device registers in the same page as the
>>> MSI-X table. We have to handle the mmio access to these
>>> registers in QEMU emulation rather than in guest.
>>>
>>> To solve this issue, this series allows to expose MSI-X table
>>> to userspace when hardware enables the capability of interrupt
>>> remapping which can ensure that a given PCI device can only
>>> shoot the MSIs assigned for it. And we introduce a new bus_flags
>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_MSI_REMAP to test this capability on PCI side
>>> for different archs.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is based on sha1
>>> 26c5cebfdb6c "Merge branch 'parisc-4.13-4' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux"
>>>
>>> Please comment. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Changelog:
>>>
>>> v5:
>>> * redid the whole thing via so-called IOMMU group capabilities
>>>
>>> v4:
>>> * rebased on recent upstream
>>> * got all 6 patches from v2 (v3 was missing some)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy (5):
>>> iommu: Add capabilities to a group
>>> iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if MSI controller enables IRQ
>>> remapping
>>> iommu/intel/amd: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if IRQ remapping is
>>> enabled
>>> powerpc/iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX
>>> vfio-pci: Allow to expose MSI-X table to userspace when safe
>>>
>>> include/linux/iommu.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/vfio.h | 1 +
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 1 +
>>> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 3 +++
>>> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_rdwr.c | 5 ++++-
>>> drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>> 9 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-15 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-07 7:25 [RFC PATCH v5 0/5] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/5] iommu: Add capabilities to a group Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-09 5:55 ` David Gibson
2017-08-09 5:55 ` David Gibson
2017-08-09 5:55 ` David Gibson
2017-08-07 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/5] iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if MSI controller enables IRQ remapping Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH v5 3/5] iommu/intel/amd: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX if IRQ remapping is enabled Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH v5 4/5] powerpc/iommu: Set IOMMU_GROUP_CAP_ISOLATE_MSIX Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` [RFC PATCH v5 5/5] vfio-pci: Allow to expose MSI-X table to userspace when safe Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-07 7:25 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-09 6:59 ` David Gibson
2017-08-09 6:59 ` David Gibson
2017-08-09 6:59 ` David Gibson
2017-08-14 9:45 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/5] vfio-pci: Add support for mmapping MSI-X table Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-14 9:45 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-14 9:45 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-14 13:12 ` Robin Murphy
2017-08-14 13:12 ` Robin Murphy
2017-08-15 1:16 ` Jike Song [this message]
2017-08-15 1:16 ` Jike Song
2017-08-15 1:16 ` Jike Song
2017-08-15 1:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 1:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 1:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 1:47 ` Jike Song
2017-08-15 1:47 ` Jike Song
2017-08-15 1:47 ` Jike Song
2017-08-15 5:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 5:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 5:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 14:48 ` David Laight
2017-08-15 14:48 ` David Laight
2017-08-15 14:48 ` David Laight
2017-08-15 14:48 ` David Laight
2017-08-15 14:48 ` David Laight
2017-08-15 5:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 5:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 5:42 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-15 16:37 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-15 16:37 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-15 16:37 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-16 0:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-16 0:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-16 0:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-16 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-16 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-16 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-17 4:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-17 4:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-17 4:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-08-17 10:56 ` David Laight
2017-08-17 10:56 ` David Laight
2017-08-17 10:56 ` David Laight
2017-08-17 19:25 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-17 19:25 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-17 19:25 ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-21 2:47 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-21 2:47 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-21 2:47 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-29 2:58 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-29 2:58 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-08-29 2:58 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-09-11 3:27 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-09-11 3:27 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2017-09-11 3:27 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
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=59924B85.5040405@intel.com \
--to=jike.song@intel.com \
--cc=Kyle.Mahlkuch@ibm.com \
--cc=aik@ozlabs.ru \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cjia@nvidia.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=elohimes@gmail.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=vlad@tsyrklevich.net \
/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.