From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature References: <1592390637-17441-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1592390637-17441-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: <10b0c837-7609-fb87-857e-5c364b06ab8b@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:21:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Halil Pasic Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com On 2020-06-18 00:29, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host >> access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the >> use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. >> >> Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices >> without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. >> > [..] > > > I'm still not really satisfied with your commit message, furthermore > I did some thinking about the abstraction you introduce here. I will > give a short analysis of that, but first things first. Your patch does > the job of preventing calamity, and the details can be changed any time, > thus: > > Acked-by: Halil Pasic Thanks, Connie already answered the other points you raised and I have nothing to add on it. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen