Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 08:51:54 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Keir Fraser <keirf@google.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: Force DMA restricted devices through DMA API
Message-ID: <YtbTGjRw65QEKkQA@infradead.org>
References: <20220719100256.419780-1-keirf@google.com>
 <YtbMcBw4l0LAFn9+@infradead.org>
 <YtbRwO40CmIRWOUR@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YtbRwO40CmIRWOUR@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 03:46:08PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> However, if the general idea at least is acceptable, would the
> implementation be acceptable if I add an explicit API for this to the
> DMA subsystem, and hide the detail there?

I don't think so.  The right thing to key off is
VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM, which really should be set in any modern
virtio device after all the problems we had with the lack of it.

> Or a completely different approach would be to revert the patch
> e41b1355508d which clears VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM in the balloon
> driver. MST: That's back in your court, as it's your patch!

Which also means this needs to be addresses, but I don't think a
simple revert is enough.