| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190812200508.GM11785@google.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:05:08 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ashok.raj@...el.com, keith.busch@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] PCI/ATS: Add PASID support for PCIe VF devices
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:06:02PM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>
> When IOMMU tries to enable PASID for VF device in
> iommu_enable_dev_iotlb(), it always fails because PASID support for PCIe
> VF device is currently broken in PCIE driver. Current implementation
> expects the given PCIe device (PF & VF) to implement PASID capability
> before enabling the PASID support. But this assumption is incorrect. As
> per PCIe spec r4.0, sec 9.3.7.14, all VFs associated with PF can only
> use the PASID of the PF and not implement it.
>
> Also, since PASID is a shared resource between PF/VF, following rules
> should apply.
>
> 1. Use proper locking before accessing/modifying PF resources in VF
> PASID enable/disable call.
> 2. Use reference count logic to track the usage of PASID resource.
> 3. Disable PASID only if the PASID reference count (pasid_ref_cnt) is zero.
>
> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
> Suggested-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/ats.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> include/linux/pci.h | 2 +
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/ats.c b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> index 079dc5444444..9384afd7d00e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/ats.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> @@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ void pci_pasid_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> if (pdev->is_virtfn)
> return;
>
> + mutex_init(&pdev->pasid_lock);
> +
> pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PASID);
> if (!pos)
> return;
> @@ -436,32 +438,57 @@ void pci_pasid_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> int pci_enable_pasid(struct pci_dev *pdev, int features)
> {
> u16 control, supported;
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>
> - if (WARN_ON(pdev->pasid_enabled))
> - return -EBUSY;
> + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
>
> - if (!pdev->eetlp_prefix_path)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (WARN_ON(pdev->pasid_enabled)) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto pasid_unlock;
> + }
>
> - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (!pdev->eetlp_prefix_path) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto pasid_unlock;
> + }
>
> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> - &supported);
> + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto pasid_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + if (pdev->is_virtfn && pf->pasid_enabled)
> + goto update_status;
> +
> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP, &supported);
> supported &= PCI_PASID_CAP_EXEC | PCI_PASID_CAP_PRIV;
>
> /* User wants to enable anything unsupported? */
> - if ((supported & features) != features)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if ((supported & features) != features) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto pasid_unlock;
> + }
>
> control = PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE | features;
> - pdev->pasid_features = features;
> -
> + pf->pasid_features = features;
> pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
>
> - pdev->pasid_enabled = 1;
> + /*
> + * If PASID is not already enabled in PF, increment pasid_ref_cnt
> + * to count PF PASID usage.
> + */
> + if (pdev->is_virtfn && !pf->pasid_enabled) {
> + atomic_inc(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
> + pf->pasid_enabled = 1;
> + }
>
> - return 0;
> +update_status:
> + atomic_inc(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
> + pdev->pasid_enabled = 1;
> +pasid_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> + return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pasid);
>
> @@ -472,16 +499,29 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pasid);
> void pci_disable_pasid(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> u16 control = 0;
> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
>
> if (WARN_ON(!pdev->pasid_enabled))
> - return;
> + goto pasid_unlock;
>
> - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> - return;
> + if (!pf->pasid_cap)
> + goto pasid_unlock;
>
> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> + atomic_dec(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
>
> + if (atomic_read(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt))
> + goto done;
> +
> + /* Disable PASID only if pasid_ref_cnt is zero */
> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> +
> +done:
> pdev->pasid_enabled = 0;
> +pasid_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> +
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pasid);
>
> @@ -492,15 +532,25 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pasid);
> void pci_restore_pasid_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> u16 control;
> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
>
> if (!pdev->pasid_enabled)
> return;
>
> - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> + if (!pf->pasid_cap)
> return;
>
> + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> +
> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, &control);
> + if (control & PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE)
> + goto pasid_unlock;
> +
> control = PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE | pdev->pasid_features;
> - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> +
> +pasid_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pasid_state);
>
> @@ -517,15 +567,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pasid_state);
> int pci_pasid_features(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> u16 supported;
> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
>
> - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> &supported);
>
> supported &= PCI_PASID_CAP_EXEC | PCI_PASID_CAP_PRIV;
>
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> +
> return supported;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_pasid_features);
> @@ -579,15 +636,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_prg_resp_pasid_required);
> int pci_max_pasids(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> u16 supported;
> + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
>
> - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> - &supported);
> + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP, &supported);
>
> supported = (supported & PASID_NUMBER_MASK) >> PASID_NUMBER_SHIFT;
>
> + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> +
> return (1 << supported);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_max_pasids);
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> index 3c9c4c82be27..4bfcca045afd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -461,8 +461,10 @@ struct pci_dev {
> atomic_t pri_ref_cnt; /* Number of PF/VF PRI users */
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_PASID
> + struct mutex pasid_lock; /* PASID enable lock */
I think these locks are finer-grained than necessary. I'm not sure
it's worth having two mutexes for every device (one for PRI and
another for PASID). Is there really a performance benefit for having
two?
Do it (or do they) need to be in struct pci_dev? You only use the PF
mutexes, so maybe it could be in the struct pci_sriov, which I think
is only one per PF.
> u16 pasid_cap; /* PASID Capability offset */
> u16 pasid_features;
> + atomic_t pasid_ref_cnt; /* Number of VFs with PASID enabled */
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_P2PDMA
> struct pci_p2pdma *p2pdma;
> --
> 2.21.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists