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: <20130624035426.GE25265@voom.fritz.box>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:54:26 +1000
From:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	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 Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 09:28:13AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 22:03 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Interestingly, how are we going to extend that when/if we implement
> DDW ?
> 
> DDW means an API by which the guest can request the creation of
> additional iommus for a given device (typically, in addition to the
> default smallish 32-bit one using 4k pages, the guest can request
> a larger window in 64-bit space using a larger page size).

So, would a PAPR gest requesting this expect the new window to have
a new liobn, or an existing liobn?

-- 
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