linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS support for the idxd driver.

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: <913537f9-5b5a-2334-f3cf-a8417d5208dd@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 3 May 2020 17:20:41 -0700
From:   "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, maz@...nel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Yi L Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        baolu.lu@...el.com, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Sanjay K Kumar <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jing Lin <jing.lin@...el.com>,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, eric.auger@...hat.com, parav@...lanox.com,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS
 support for the idxd driver.



On 5/3/2020 3:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:31:39PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 5/3/2020 3:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Dey, Megha wrote:
>>>>>> This has been my concern reviewing the implementation. IMS needs more
>>>>>> than one in-tree user to validate degrees of freedom in the api. I had
>>>>>> been missing a second "in-tree user" to validate the scope of the
>>>>>> flexibility that was needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMS is too narrowly specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> All platforms that support MSI today can support IMS. It is simply a
>>>>> way for the platform to give the driver an addr/data pair that triggers
>>>>> an interrupt when a posted write is performed to that pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes and no. IMS requires interrupt remapping in addition to the
>>>> dynamic nature of IRQ allocation.
>>>
>>> You've mentioned remapping a few times, but I really can't understand
>>> why it has anything to do with platform_msi or IMS..
>>
>> So after some internal discussions, we have concluded that IMS has no
>> linkage with Interrupt remapping, IR is just a platform concept. IMS is just
>> a name Intel came up with, all it really means is device managed addr/data
>> writes to generate interrupts. Technically we can call something IMS even if
>> device has its own location to store interrupts in non-pci standard
>> mechanism, much like platform-msi indeed. We simply need to extend
>> platform-msi to its address some of its shortcomings: increase number of
>> interrupts to > 2048, enable dynamic allocation of interrupts, add
>> mask/unmask callbacks in addition to write_msg etc.
> 
> Sounds right to me
> 
> Persumably you still need a way for the driver, eg vfio, to ensure a
> MSI is remappable, but shouldn't that be exactly the same way as done
> in normal PCI MSI today?

yes exactly, it should be done in the same way as PCI-MSI, if IR is 
enabled we will have IR_PCI_MSI for platform msi as well.
> 
>> FWIW, even MSI can be IMS with rules on how to manage the addr/data writes
>> following pci sig .. its just that.
> 
> Yep, IMHO, our whole handling of MSI is very un-general sometimes..
> 
> I thought the msi_domain stuff that some platforms are using is a way
> to improve on that? You might find that updating x86 to use msi_domain
> might be helpful in this project???

yes, we need to take a closer look at this.
> 
> Jason
>