linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] iommu: Reserved regions for IOVAs beyond dma

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: <1b5102d6-2a85-e73a-4676-63b1228f7144@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:41:18 +0200
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, joro@...tes.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] iommu: Reserved regions for IOVAs beyond dma_mask and
 iommu aperture

Hi all,

On 10/5/20 3:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:44:10AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> I see that there are both OF and ACPI hooks in pci_dma_configure() and
>>> both modify dev->dma_mask, which is what pci-sysfs is exposing here,
>>> but I'm not convinced this even does what it's intended to do.  The
>>> driver core calls this via the bus->dma_configure callback before
>>> probing a driver, but then what happens when the driver calls
>>> pci_set_dma_mask()?  This is just a wrapper for dma_set_mask() and I
>>> don't see anywhere that would take into account the existing
>>> dev->dma_mask.  It seems for example that pci_dma_configure() could
>>> produce a 42 bit mask as we have here, then the driver could override
>>> that with anything that the dma_ops.dma_supported() callback finds
>>> acceptable, and I don't see any instances where the current
>>> dev->dma_mask is considered.  Am I overlooking something? 
>>
>> I don't think so but Christoph and Robin can provide more input on
>> this - it is a long story.
>>
>> ACPI and OF bindings set a default dma_mask (and dev->bus_dma_limit),
>> this does not prevent a driver from overriding the dev->dma_mask but DMA
>> mapping code still takes into account the dev->bus_dma_limit.
>>
>> This may help:
>>
>> git log -p 03bfdc31176c

Thank you Lorenzo for the pointer.
> 
> This is at best a historic artefact.  Bus drivers have no business
> messing with the DMA mask, dev->bus_dma_limit is the way to communicate
> addressing limits on the bus (or another interconnect closer to the CPU).
> 
Then could I envision to use the dev->bus_dma_limit instead of the
dev->dma_mask?

Nevertheless, I would need a way to let the userspace know that the
usable IOVA ranges reported by VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_INFO_CAP_IOVA_RANGE
takes into account the addressing limits of the bus.

Thanks

Eric