linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation APIs

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: <YFSqDNJ5yagk4eO+@myrica>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:41:32 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
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 09:46:45AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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?

mm_access() for example, and passing addresses via IPC

> Why do we need separation anyhow? SVM devices are supposed to be
> secure or they shouldn't do SVM.

Right

Thanks,
Jean