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]

Message-ID: <20190514105509.7865ebc0@jacob-builder>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 10:55:09 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....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>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Andriy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] iommu: Introduce cache_invalidate API

On Tue, 14 May 2019 13:02:47 +0200
Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
Yes, I agree to replace the standalone __64 pasid with this struct.
Looks more inline with address selective info., Just to double confirm
the new struct.

Jean, will you put this in your sva/api repo?

struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info {
#define IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE_INFO_VERSION_1 1
	__u32	version;
/* IOMMU paging structure cache */
#define IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_IOTLB	(1 << 0) /* IOMMU IOTLB */
#define IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_DEV_IOTLB	(1 << 1) /* Device IOTLB
*/
#define IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_PASID	(1 << 2) /* PASID cache */
#define IOMMU_CACHE_TYPE_NR		(3)
	__u8	cache;
	__u8	granularity;
	__u8	padding[2];
	union {
		struct iommu_inv_pasid_info pasid_info;
		struct iommu_inv_addr_info addr_info;
	};
};