linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: add IOMMU_CAP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:38:09 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Baptiste Reynal <b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux IOMMU <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: add IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS to the ARM
 SMMUv3 driver

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:32:00AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>> > There are two things here:
>> >
>> >   1. iommu_present() is pretty useless, because it applies to a "bus" which
>> >      doesn't actually tell you what you need to know for things like the
>> >      platform_bus, where some masters might be upstream of an SMMU and
>> >      others might not be.
>>
>> I agree with you. The iommu_present() check in vfio_iommu_group_get()
>> is not much useful. We only reach line which checks iommu_present()
>> when iommu_group_get() returns NULL for given "struct device *". If there
>> is no IOMMU group for a "struct device *" then it means there is no IOMMU
>> HW doing translations for such device.
>>
>> If we drop the iommu_present() check (due to above reasons) in
>> vfio_iommu_group_get() then we don't require the IOMMU_CAP_BYPASS
>> and we can happily drop PATCH1, PATCH2, and PATCH3.
>>
>> I will remove the iommu_present() check in vfio_iommu_group_get()
>> because it is only comes into actions when VFIO_NOIOMMU is
>> enabled. This will also help us drop PATCH1-to-PATCH3.
>
> I don't think that's the right answer. Whilst iommu_present has obvious
> shortcomings, its intention is clear: it should tell you whether a given
> *device* is upstream of an IOMMU. So the right fix is to make this
> per-device, instead of per-bus. Removing it altogether is worse than leaving
> it like it is.
>
>> >   2. If a master *is* upstream of an IOMMU and you want to use no-IOMMU,
>> >      then the VFIO no-IOMMU code needs to be extended so that it creates
>> >      an IDENTITY domain on that IOMMU.
>>
>> The VFIO no-IOMMU mode is equivalent to Linux UIO hence having
>> IDENTITY domain for VFIO no-IOMMU is not appropriate here.
>
> Can you elaborate on this please? I don't understand the argument you're
> making. It's like saying "I don't like eggs, therefore I don't drive a
> car".
>

Like I said, VFIO no-IOMMU mode for a device means device transactions
will not go through any IOMMU. That's why having IDENTITY domain for
device using VFIO no-IOMMU is not semantically correct. The analogy you
proposed does not apply here.

Anyways, this patch has nothing to do with FlexRM support for
VFIO platform hence I will drop it. Fixing VFIO no-IOMMU mode
can be a separate patchset.

Regards,
Anup