[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210319124645.GP2356281@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:46:45 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
allocation APIs
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:58:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Although there is no use for it at the moment (only two upstream users and
> it looks like amdkfd always uses current too), I quite like the
> client-server model where the privileged process does bind() and programs
> the hardware queue on behalf of the client process.
This creates a lot complexity, how do does process A get a secure
reference to B? How does it access the memory in B to setup the HW?
Why do we need separation anyhow? SVM devices are supposed to be
secure or they shouldn't do SVM.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists