linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Replace intel SVM APIs with generic SVA APIs

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: <6cc2f1ea-5a7d-eeab-b50c-5b464098de6b@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:42:20 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Replace intel SVM APIs with generic SVA
 APIs

On 2020/3/24 7:01, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Hi Jean
> 
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:29:55AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> +#define to_intel_svm_dev(handle) container_of(handle, struct intel_svm_dev, sva)
>>> +struct iommu_sva *
>>> +intel_svm_bind(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, void *drvdata)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct iommu_sva *sva = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> +	struct intel_svm_dev *sdev = NULL;
>>> +	int flags = 0;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * TODO: Consolidate with generic iommu-sva bind after it is merged.
>>> +	 * It will require shared SVM data structures, i.e. combine io_mm
>>> +	 * and intel_svm etc.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (drvdata)
>>> +		flags = *(int *)drvdata;
>>
>> drvdata is more for storing device driver contexts that can be passed to
>> iommu_sva_ops, but I get that this is temporary.
>>
>> As usual I'm dreading supervisor mode making it into the common API. What
>> are your plans regarding SUPERVISOR_MODE and PRIVATE_PASID flags?  The
>> previous discussion on the subject [1] had me hoping that you could
>> replace supervisor mode with normal mappings (auxiliary domains?)
>> I'm less worried about PRIVATE_PASID, it would just add complexity into
> 
> We don't seem to have an immediate need for PRIVATE_PASID. There are some talks
> about potential usages, but nothing concrete. I think it might be good to
> get rid of it now and add when we really need.
> 
> For SUPERVISOR_MODE, the idea is to have aux domain. Baolu is working on
> something to replace. Certainly the entire kernel address is opening up
> the whole kimono.. so we are looking at dynamically creating mappings on demand.
> It might take some of the benefits of SVA in general with no need to create
> mappings, but for security somebody has to pay the price :-)

My thought is to reuse below aux-domain API.

int iommu_aux_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
			    struct device *dev)

Currently, it asks the vendor iommu driver to allocate a PASID and bind
the domain with it. We can change it to allow the caller to pass in an
existing supervisor PASID.

int iommu_aux_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
			    struct device *dev,
			    int *pasid)

In the vendor iommu driver, if (*pasid == INVALID_IOASID), it will
allocate a pasid (the same as current behavior); otherwise, attach
the domain with the pass-in pasid.

Best regards,
baolu