linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] iommu/vt-d: Manage scalalble mode PASID tables

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: <5c81008b-30e8-177d-0182-db366608562f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:58:06 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@...el.com>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] iommu/vt-d: Manage scalalble mode PASID tables

Hi,

On 12/4/18 1:23 AM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
> 
>> From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@...tes.org]
>> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:44 AM
>> To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] iommu/vt-d: Manage scalalble mode PASID tables
>>
>> Hi Baolu,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:54:39AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> @@ -2482,12 +2482,13 @@ static struct dmar_domain
>> *dmar_insert_one_dev_info(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
>>>   	if (dev)
>>>   		dev->archdata.iommu = info;
>>>
>>> -	if (dev && dev_is_pci(dev) && info->pasid_supported) {
>>> +	/* PASID table is mandatory for a PCI device in scalable mode. */
>>> +	if (dev && dev_is_pci(dev) && sm_supported(iommu)) {
>>
>> This will also allocate a PASID table if the device does not support
>> PASIDs, right? Will the table not be used in that case or will the
>> device just use the fallback PASID? Isn't it better in that case to have
>> no PASID table?
> 
> We need to allocate the PASID table in scalable mode, the reason is as below:
> In VT-d scalable mode, all address translation is done in PASID-granularity.
> For requests-with-PASID, the address translation would be subjected to the
> PASID entry specified by the PASID value in the DMA request. However, for
> requests-without-PASID, there is no PASID in the DMA request. To fulfil
> the translation logic, we've introduced RID2PASID field in sm-context-entry
> in VT-d 3.o spec. So that such DMA requests would be subjected to the pasid
> entry specified by the PASID value in the RID2PASID field of sm-context-entry.
> 
> So for a device without PASID support, we need to at least to have a PASID
> entry so that its DMA request (without pasid) can be translated. Thus a PASID
> table is needed for such devices.
> 
>>
>>> @@ -143,18 +143,20 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
>>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>>   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pasid_table->dev);
>>>
>>> -	size = sizeof(struct pasid_entry);
>>> -	count = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)), intel_pasid_max_id);
>>> -	order = get_order(size * count);
>>> +	if (info->pasid_supported)
>>> +		max_pasid = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)),
>>> +				  intel_pasid_max_id);
>>> +
>>> +	size = max_pasid >> (PASID_PDE_SHIFT - 3);
>>> +	order = size ? get_order(size) : 0;
>>>   	pages = alloc_pages_node(info->iommu->node,
>>> -				 GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
>>> -				 order);
>>> +				 GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO, order);
>>
>> This is a simple data structure allocation path, does it need
>> GFP_ATOMIC?
> 

This function is called in an unsleepable context.

spin_lock(&lock)
[...]
if (pasid_table_is_necessary)
	allocate_pasid_table(dev)
[...]
spin_unlock(&lock)

We can move it out of the lock range.

How about

if (pasid_table_is_necessary)
	pasid_table = allocate_pasid_table(dev)

spin_lock(&lock)
[...]
if (pasid_table_is_necessary)
	set_up_pasid_table(pasid_table)
[...]
spin_unlock(&lock)

?

Best regards,
Lu Baolu