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: <d1cd2852-876a-b072-8576-962a6e61b9a9@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:32:37 +0200
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     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

Hi,

On 4/1/20 9:13 AM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
>> 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.

On my side, I understood from the spec that addr/S are always used
whatever the granularity, hence the above suggestion.

As a comparison, for PASID based IOTLB invalidation, it is clearly
stated that if G matches PASID selective invalidation, address field is
ignored. This is not written that way for PASID-based device TLB inv.
> 
> 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)
oups indeed

Thanks

Eric
> 
>>>
>>>> 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
>