linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory

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: <dc414fa5-1af9-0ba7-e12e-4cd9df313119@deltatee.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:59:14 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Cc:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory



On 23/03/18 03:50 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Popping way up the stack, my original point was that I'm trying to
> remove restrictions on what devices can participate in peer-to-peer
> DMA.  I think it's fairly clear that in conventional PCI, any devices
> in the same PCI hierarchy, i.e., below the same host-to-PCI bridge,
> should be able to DMA to each other.

Yup, we are working on this.

> The routing behavior of PCIe is supposed to be compatible with
> conventional PCI, and I would argue that this effectively requires
> multi-function PCIe devices to have the internal routing required to
> avoid the route-to-self issue.

That would be very nice but many devices do not support the internal
route. We've had to work around this in the past and as I mentioned
earlier that NVMe devices have a flag indicating support. However, if a
device wants to be involved in P2P it must support it and we can exclude
devices that don't support it by simply not enabling their drivers.

Logan