linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V10 08/11] iommu/vt-d: Add svm/sva invalidate function

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: <A2975661238FB949B60364EF0F2C25743A21D52E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 07:13:38 +0000
From:   "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...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>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V10 08/11] iommu/vt-d: Add svm/sva invalidate function

> From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:30 PM
> To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V10 08/11] iommu/vt-d: Add svm/sva invalidate function
> 
> > From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:58 AM
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 02:49:21 +0000
> > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:34 PM
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 3/28/20 11:01 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > >> From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 7:28 AM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When Shared Virtual Address (SVA) is enabled for a guest OS via
> > > > >> vIOMMU, we need to provide invalidation support at IOMMU API
> > > > >> and
> > > > driver
> > > > >> level. This patch adds Intel VT-d specific function to
> > > > >> implement iommu passdown invalidate API for shared virtual address.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The use case is for supporting caching structure invalidation
> > > > >> of assigned SVM capable devices. Emulated IOMMU exposes queue
> > >  [...]
> > >  [...]
> > > > to
> > > > >> + * VT-d granularity. Invalidation is typically included in the
> > > > >> unmap
> > > > operation
> > > > >> + * as a result of DMA or VFIO unmap. However, for assigned
> > > > >> devices
> > > > guest
> > > > >> + * owns the first level page tables. Invalidations of
> > > > >> translation caches in
> > > > the
> > >  [...]
> > >  [...]
> > >  [...]
> > > >
> > inv_type_granu_map[IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_NR][IOMMU_INV_GRANU_
> > > > >> NR] = {
> > > > >> +	/*
> > > > >> +	 * PASID based IOTLB invalidation: PASID selective (per
> > > > >> PASID),
> > > > >> +	 * page selective (address granularity)
> > > > >> +	 */
> > > > >> +	{0, 1, 1},
> > > > >> +	/* PASID based dev TLBs, only support all PASIDs or
> > > > >> single PASID */
> > > > >> +	{1, 1, 0},
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this combination correct? when single PASID is being
> > > > > specified, it is essentially a page-selective invalidation since
> > > > > you need provide Address and Size.
> > > > Isn't it the same when G=1? Still the addr/size is used. Doesn't
> > > > it
> > >
> > > I thought addr/size is not used when G=1, but it might be wrong. I'm
> > > checking with our vt-d spec owner.
> > >
> >
> > > > correspond to IOMMU_INV_GRANU_ADDR with
> IOMMU_INV_ADDR_FLAGS_PASID
> > > > flag unset?
> > > >
> > > > so {0, 0, 1}?
> > >
> > I am not sure I got your logic. The three fields correspond to
> > 	IOMMU_INV_GRANU_DOMAIN,	/* domain-selective
> > invalidation */
> > 	IOMMU_INV_GRANU_PASID,	/* PASID-selective invalidation */
> > 	IOMMU_INV_GRANU_ADDR,	/* page-selective invalidation *
> >
> > For devTLB, we use domain as global since there is no domain. Then I
> > came up with {1, 1, 0}, which means we could have global and pasid
> > granu invalidation for PASID based devTLB.
> >
> > If the caller also provide addr and S bit, the flush routine will put
> 
> "also" -> "must", because vt-d requires addr/size must be provided in
> devtlb
> descriptor, that is why Eric suggests {0, 0, 1}.

I think it should be {0, 0, 1} :-) addr field and S field are must, pasid
field depends on G bit.

I didn’t read through all comments. Here is a concern with this 2-D table,
the iommu cache type is defined as below. I suppose there is a problem here.
If I'm using IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_PASID, it will beyond the 2-D table.

/* 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_INV_TYPE_NR         (3)

> >
> > > I have one more open:
> > >
> > > How does userspace know which invalidation type/gran is supported?
> > > I didn't see such capability reporting in Yi's VFIO vSVA patch set.
> > > Do we want the user/kernel assume the same capability set if they
> > > are architectural? However the kernel could also do some
> > > optimization e.g. hide devtlb invalidation capability given that the
> > > kernel already invalidate devtlb automatically when serving iotlb
> > > invalidation...
> > >
> > In general, we are trending to use VFIO capability chain to expose
> > iommu capabilities.
> >
> > But for architectural features such as type/granu, we have to assume
> > the same capability between host & guest. Granu and types are not
> > enumerated on the host IOMMU either.
> >
> > For devTLB optimization, I agree we need to expose a capability to the
> > guest stating that implicit devtlb invalidation is supported.
> > Otherwise, if Linux guest runs on other OSes may not support implicit
> > devtlb invalidation.
> >
> > Right Yi?
> 
> Thanks for explanation. So we are assumed to support all operations
> defined in spec, so no need to expose them one-by-one. For optimization,
> I'm fine to do it later.

yes. :-)

Regards,
Yi Liu