linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] iommu/vt-d: Support flushing more translation cache types

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: <34ef67b6-53ef-d15f-0fad-ef4c39719155@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:17:28 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] iommu/vt-d: Support flushing more translation
 cache types

Hi,

On 1/10/20 5:50 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:46:51 +0800
> Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>  wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/17/19 3:24 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> When Shared Virtual Memory is exposed to a guest via vIOMMU,
>>> scalable IOTLB invalidation may be passed down from outside IOMMU
>>> subsystems. This patch adds invalidation functions that can be used
>>> for additional translation cache types.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan<jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/iommu/dmar.c        | 46
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/iommu/intel-pasid.c |  3 ++- include/linux/intel-iommu.h |
>>> 21 +++++++++++++++++---- 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 5
>>> deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>> index 3acfa6a25fa2..f2f5d75da94a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>> @@ -1348,6 +1348,20 @@ void qi_flush_iotlb(struct intel_iommu
>>> *iommu, u16 did, u64 addr, qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
>>>    }
>>>    
>>> +/* PASID-based IOTLB Invalidate */
>>> +void qi_flush_iotlb_pasid(struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 did, u64
>>> addr, u32 pasid,
>>> +		unsigned int size_order, u64 granu, int ih)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct qi_desc desc = {.qw2 = 0, .qw3 = 0};
>>> +
>>> +	desc.qw0 = QI_EIOTLB_PASID(pasid) | QI_EIOTLB_DID(did) |
>>> +		QI_EIOTLB_GRAN(granu) | QI_EIOTLB_TYPE;
>>> +	desc.qw1 = QI_EIOTLB_ADDR(addr) | QI_EIOTLB_IH(ih) |
>>> +		QI_EIOTLB_AM(size_order);
>>> +
>>> +	qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
>>> +}
>> There's another version of pasid-based iotlb invalidation.
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/10/2128
>>
>> Let's consider merging them.
>>
> Absolutely, the difference i see is that the granularity is explicit
> here. Here we do invalidation request from the guest. Perhaps, we can
> look at consolidation once this use case is supported?
> 

Looks good to me. :-)

Best regards,
baolu