Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature

From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:21:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10b0c837-7609-fb87-857e-5c364b06ab8b@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com>

On 2020-06-18 00:29, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> 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 <pasic@linux.ibm.com>

Thanks,

Connie already answered the other points you raised and I have nothing 
to add on it.

Regards,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen