From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E73E81E570A; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740040038; cv=none; b=JzLwPX5Q744srYPTHpLQvJpSq1cpXhPAFluv2LjjqkADNdq5FW5/AdDGydReUDmLdfk+//xYB7gTgGyCRt01NkIUvnBM1tQ8r7gWFq1dSK+lhftNaUAUjhAHABhUQ6g0mdW40757jaYJbrwo3s9mvveHx1/l2KTglEycuaoaSCI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740040038; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rcBGyUMYZ/bHU0L3nRC+4rFrhWsLpbmpvNcc2KMnCPc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Zt36L0XntOScTacGH8sNEvR13nMUvi+0H8ODa65goGnYNM/qu2Vc3yuRXvIl5d6Y3WORe4YjIx/c3FzGz6/8htVECfYx5Nfi6Hc0mBrYW9DCPYeK9N+c5Vrzt2USOayRnZwwLsChoY7mGexzNhfWtIAy0vn9CYrthUUJKtgFVpc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=u3kDrQHC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="u3kDrQHC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2547C4CED1; Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:27:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1740040036; bh=rcBGyUMYZ/bHU0L3nRC+4rFrhWsLpbmpvNcc2KMnCPc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=u3kDrQHCrO5r8CDTY5nMv92tM/0n3KRY4oVthQGhMttqsECu+dRmRxCrhKbjPrnwh jsR9tYx1MUOvKQ+p0jSUBlfkWqk/roIiPQv6bmr/O+tMJw//Vcjr1VZXRvGw0ba3LY Od77ZOjpPOED5H5cEXcqRMWVR+kTW5sKNdXN5Zh4= Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:27:13 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Joshua Peraza Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com, dtor@google.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, helgaas@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, jean-philippe@linaro.org, joro@8bytes.org, jsbarnes@google.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, oohall@gmail.com, pavel@denx.de, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org, rajatja@google.com, rajatxjain@gmail.com, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 0/2] PCI/ACPI: Support Microsoft's "DmaProperty" Message-ID: <2025022053-circulate-pamphlet-a718@gregkh> References: <20241118193024.2695876-1-jperaza@google.com> <2024111818-molecule-pedicure-db1b@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 01:53:48PM -0800, Joshua Peraza wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:43 AM Greg KH wrote: Wow this is a slow discussion :) > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 07:30:22PM +0000, Joshua Peraza wrote: > > > This patchset rebases two previously posted patches supporting > > > recognition of Microsoft's DmaProperty. > > > > > > v8: Joshua renames untrusted_dma to requires_dma_protection and updates > > > some comments, reducing use of the word "trust" to refer to PCI devices > > > and matching the word choice in Microsoft's documentation. > > > > So this is the "clarity"? I'm not sold, sorry. Again, did you look at > > the previous discussions we had about this name? We don't have to use > > Microsoft's term here as it is used differently by Linux today, right? > > If you really want to support the DmaProperty, why not just support that > > with a new bit as that's something different here, right? > > > > Again, look at what this is supposed to be conveying. They ability to > > DMA to anywhere isn't really the root issue here, or is it? What is the > > threat model you are trying to mitigate? > > > > > v7: Rajat updates a comment with Robin's suggestion. Joshua re-sends and > > > Greg requests clarity and documentation on why untrusted_dma is the > > > right name. > > > > > > v6: Rajat renames pci_dev_has_dma_property and links to Microsoft's > > > documentation in the commit message. Robin suggests clarifying a > > > comment. > > > > > > v5: Rajat changes the name to untrusted_dma. Bjorn suggesting changing > > > another function's name pci_acpi_check_for_dma_protection to > > > pci_dev_has_dma_property and seeks clarified documentation. > > > > > > v4: Rajat changes the name to poses_dma_risk. Christoph suggests this > > > name doesn't capture the intent as well as untrusted_dma and Rafael > > > agrees. > > > > > > v1,v2,v3: Greg suggests that (un)trusted is the wrong word for referring > > > to PCI devices, recommending a name something like "platform wants to > > > protect dma access for this device." > > > > Or is it? I said this when? Just how old is this patch series? > > > > confused, > > > > greg k-h > > (sorry if you're getting this again; re-sending as plain text) > > Sorry for the confusion! What do you think about the following for a > new cover letter? I really don't remember anymore, sorry. Try submitting the whole series again as I don't know what you wrote the first time here. thanks, greg "I get 1000 emails a day" k-h