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:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 06:13:03 -0400
From:	Rob Clark <>
To:	Thierry Reding <>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <>, Will Deacon <>,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Pawel Moll <>,
	Mark Rutland <>,
	Ian Campbell <>,
	Kumar Gala <>,
	Stephen Warren <>,
	Joerg Roedel <>,
	Olav Haugan <>,
	"" <>,
	Grant Grundler <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Marc Zyngier <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Varun Sethi <>,
	Cho KyongHo <>,
	Dave P Martin <>,
	Hiroshi Doyu <>,
	linux-arm-msm <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] devicetree: Add generic IOMMU device tree bindings

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Thierry Reding
<> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 08:57:31AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
> [...]
>> > The way that Thierry's binding does that is the obvious solution to this,
>> > and it mirrors what we do in practically every other subsystem. I definitely
>> > want the SMMU to change before anybody starts using it in a real system,
>> > which we fortunately do not have yet.
>> hmm, well if some of the things I need for (like this or batching
>> mappings) are too weird and gpu specific, I'm willing to duplicate the
>> IOMMU driver in drm/msm.  It really isn't so much code, and that gives
>> me a lot more more flexibility to do crazy things... at some point I'm
>> probably going to want to do context switches by banging the IOMMU
>> registers directly from the gpu.
> If the IOMMU API doesn't provide for what you need, then perhaps it's
> time to enhance it? We do that all the time in other parts of the
> kernel, why should IOMMU be special?

sure.. and my comment was also about the map/unmap batching.

Bypassing IOMMU wouldn't be my first choice.  (Especially because I'd
then get to implement it twice.)  But if some of the things I need are
too specific to one driver (or worse, problematic for other IOMMU
use-cases which I don't know about), then it is an option I'd be
willing to consider.  If nothing else, it would get me out of
allocating sglists for every buffer..  I wonder how much memory
scatterlists take up for 500M of gfx buffers?

> It seems to me like context switching for per-process address space
> isolation is one of the important features of an IOMMU. If the current
> API doesn't let you do that then we should think of ways how it can be
> improved. And if it doesn't do it fast enough, then we should equally
> find ways to speed it up.
> This is part of why I think it would be good to have explicit objects
> associated with IOMMU contexts. That would give us a good place to add
> caching for this kind of situation. Currently we're required to handle
> most of this in drivers (map from struct device to context, ...).

well, it is at least awkward that the current api conflates attaching
device and attaching context.  I think we could get some use out of an
iommu_swap() API which conceptually acts as:

  iommu_swap(olddomain, newdomain, dev)
     iommu_detach_device(olddomain, dev);
     iommu_attach_device(newdomain, dev);


> Thierry
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists