linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

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]

Message-ID: <20130622120304.GB25265@voom.fritz.box>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:03:04 +1000
From:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org mailing list" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 18:48 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > On 06/20/2013 05:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 15:28 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > >>> Just out of curiosity - would not get_file() and fput_atomic() on a
> > >> group's
> > >>> file* do the right job instead of vfio_group_add_external_user() and
> > >>> vfio_group_del_external_user()?
> > >>
> > >> I was thinking that too.  Grabbing a file reference would certainly be
> > >> the usual way of handling this sort of thing.
> > > 
> > > But that wouldn't prevent the group ownership to be returned to
> > > the kernel or another user would it ?
> > 
> > 
> > Holding the file pointer does not let the group->container_users counter go
> > to zero
> 
> How so?  Holding the file pointer means the file won't go away, which
> means the group release function won't be called.  That means the group
> won't go away, but that doesn't mean it's attached to an IOMMU.  A user
> could call UNSET_CONTAINER.

Uhh... *thinks*.  Ah, I see.

I think the interface should not take the group fd, but the container
fd.  Holding a reference to *that* would keep the necessary things
around.  But more to the point, it's the right thing semantically:

The container is essentially the handle on a host iommu address space,
and so that's what should be bound by the KVM call to a particular
guest iommu address space.  e.g. it would make no sense to bind two
different groups to different guest iommu address spaces, if they were
in the same container - the guest thinks they are different spaces,
but if they're in the same container they must be the same space.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped