linux-kernel - Re: arm64 iommu groups issue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20fe20d8-8c2e-642f-019c-3b92e7dbd31c@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:35:45 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        "Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: arm64 iommu groups issue

On 12/06/2020 15:30, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:08:48PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right, and even worse is that it relies on the port driver even
>>>> existing at all.
>>>>
>>>> All this iommu group assignment should be taken outside device
>>>> driver probe paths.
>>>>
>>>> However we could still consider device links for sync'ing the SMMU
>>>> and each device probing.
>>>
>>> Yes, we should get that for DT now thanks to the of_devlink stuff, but
>>> cooking up some equivalent for IORT might be worthwhile.
>>
>> It doesn't solve this problem, but at least we could remove the iommu_ops
>> check in iort_iommu_xlate().
>>
>> We would need to carve out a path from pci_device_add() or even device_add()
>> to solve all cases.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Another thought that crosses my mind is that when pci_device_group()
>>>>> walks up to the point of ACS isolation and doesn't find an existing
>>>>> group, it can still infer that everything it walked past *should* be put
>>>>> in the same group it's then eventually going to return. Unfortunately I
>>>>> can't see an obvious way for it to act on that knowledge, though, since
>>>>> recursive iommu_probe_device() is unlikely to end well.
>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> And this looks to be the reason for which current
>>>> iommu_bus_init()->bus_for_each_device(..., add_iommu_group) fails
>>>> also.
>>>
>>> Of course, just adding a 'correct' add_device replay without the
>>> of_xlate process doesn't help at all. No wonder this looked suspiciously
>>> simpler than where the first idea left off...
>>>
>>> (on reflection, the core of this idea seems to be recycling the existing
>>> iommu_bus_init walk rather than building up a separate "waiting list",
>>> while forgetting that that wasn't the difficult part of the original
>>> idea anyway)
>>
>> We could still use a bus walk to add the group per iommu, but we would need
>> an additional check to ensure the device is associated with the IOMMU.
>>
>>>
>>>> On this current code mentioned, the principle of this seems wrong to
>>>> me - we call bus_for_each_device(..., add_iommu_group) for the first
>>>> SMMU in the system which probes, but we attempt to add_iommu_group()
>>>> for all devices on the bus, even though the SMMU for that device may
>>>> yet to have probed.
>>>
>>> Yes, iommu_bus_init() is one of the places still holding a
>>> deeply-ingrained assumption that the ops go live for all IOMMU instances
>>> at once, which is what warranted the further replay in
>>> of_iommu_configure() originally. Moving that out of
>>> of_platform_device_create() to support probe deferral is where the
>>> trouble really started.
>>
>> I'm not too familiar with the history here, but could this be reverted now
>> with the introduction of of_devlink stuff?
> 
> Hi John,

Hi Lorenzo,

> 
> have we managed to reach a consensus on this thread on how to solve
> the issue ? 

No, not really. So Robin and I tried a couple of quick things 
previously, but they came did not come to much, as above.

> Asking because this thread seems stalled - I am keen on
> getting it fixed.

I haven't spent more time on this. But from what I was hearing last 
time, this issue was ticketed internally for arm, so I was waiting for 
that to be picked up to re-engage.

Thanks,
John