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: <20200401090540.135fd760@jacob-builder>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:05:40 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.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>,
        jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 08/11] iommu/vt-d: Add svm/sva invalidate function

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:32:37 +0200
Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com> wrote:

> >> 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 misread the S bit. It all makes sense now. Thanks for the proposal
and explanation.

Jacob