linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommu: Introduce cache

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 13:02:47 +0200
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API

Hi Jean,

On 5/14/19 12:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 14/05/2019 08:46, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On 5/13/19 7:09 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 17:50, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>>> struct iommu_inv_pasid_info {
>>>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_PASID	(1 << 0)
>>>>> #define IOMMU_INV_PASID_FLAGS_ARCHID	(1 << 1)
>>>>> 	__u32	flags;
>>>>> 	__u32	archid;
>>>>> 	__u64	pasid;
>>>>> };
>>>> I agree it does the job now. However it looks a bit strange to do a
>>>> PASID based invalidation in my case - SMMUv3 nested stage - where I
>>>> don't have any PASID involved.
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't we call it context based invalidation then? A context can be
>>>> tagged by a PASID or/and an ARCHID.
>>>
>>> I think calling it "context" would be confusing as well (I shouldn't
>>> have used it earlier), since VT-d uses that name for device table
>>> entries (=STE on Arm SMMU). Maybe "addr_space"?
>> yes you're right. Well we already pasid table table terminology so we
>> can use it here as well - as long as we understand what purpose it
>> serves ;-) - So OK for iommu_inv_pasid_info.
>>
>> I think Jean understood we would keep pasid standalone field in
I meant Jacob here.
>> iommu_cache_invalidate_info's union. I understand the struct
>> iommu_inv_pasid_info now would replace it, correct?

Thank you for the confirmation.

Eric

> 
> Yes
> 
> Thanks,
> Jean
>