linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu: Bind process address spaces to devices

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: <20190228105320.65e8b771@jacob-builder>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:53:20 -0800
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        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>,
        "christian.koenig@....com" <christian.koenig@....com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu: Bind process address spaces to devices

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 01:10:55 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:

> > From: Jacob Pan [mailto:jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:41 AM
> > 
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:17:43 +0100
> > Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> >   
> > >
> > > How about a 'struct iommu_sva' with an iommu-private definition
> > > that is returned by this function:
> > >
> > > 	struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device
> > > *dev, struct mm_struct *mm);
> > >  
> > Just trying to understand how to use this API.
> > So if we bind the same mm to two different devices, we should get
> > two different iommu_sva handle, right?
> > I think intel-svm still needs a flag argument for supervisor pasid
> > etc. Other than that, I think both interface should work for vt-d.
> > 
> > Another question is that for nested SVA, we will need to bind guest
> > mm. Do you think we should try to reuse this or have it separate? I
> > am working on a separate API for now.
> >   
> 
> It has to be different. Host doesn't know guest mm.
> 
> Also note that from virtualization p.o.v we just focus on 'nested
> translation' in host side. The 1st level may point to guest CPU
> page table (SVA), or IOVA page table. In that manner, the API
> (as currently defined in your series) is purely about setting up
> nested translation on VFIO assigned device. 
>
Sounds good, will keep them separate.