From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: rajatxjain@gmail.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: Rename pci_dev->untrusted to pci_dev->external
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:07:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210420170708.GA2813156@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420061006.GA3523612@infradead.org>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:10:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:30:49PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
> > The current flag name "untrusted" is not correct as it is populated
> > using the firmware property "external-facing" for the parent ports. In
> > other words, the firmware only says which ports are external facing, so
> > the field really identifies the devices as external (vs internal).
> >
> > Only field renaming. No functional change intended.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. First the field should have been
> added to the generic struct device as requested multiple times before.
Fair point. There isn't anything PCI-specific about this idea. The
ACPI "ExternalFacingPort" and DT "external-facing" are currently only
defined for PCI devices, but could be applied elsewhere.
> Right now this requires horrible hacks in the IOMMU code to get at the
> pci_dev, and also doesn't scale to various other potential users.
Agreed, this is definitely suboptimal. Do you have other users in
mind? Maybe they could help inform the plan.
> Second the untrusted is objectively a better name. Because untrusted
> is how we treat the device, which is what mattes. External is just
> how we come to that conclusion.
The decision to treat "external" as being "untrusted" is a little bit
of policy that the PCI core really doesn't care about, so I think it
does make some sense to let the places that *do* care decide what to
trust based on "external" and possibly other factors, e.g., whether
the device is a BMC or processes untrusted data, etc.
But I guess it makes sense to wait until we have a better motivation
before renaming it, since we don't gain any functionality here.
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-20 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 0:30 [PATCH] pci: Rename pci_dev->untrusted to pci_dev->external Rajat Jain via iommu
2021-04-20 6:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-04-20 17:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
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=20210420170708.GA2813156@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rajatja@google.com \
--cc=rajatxjain@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox