[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210511163521.GN1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 13:35:21 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, wangzhou1@...ilicon.com,
zhangfei.gao@...aro.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iommu/sva: Tighten SVA bind API with explicit
flags
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:14:52AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Honestly, I'm not convinced we should have "kernel SVA" at all.. Why
> > does IDXD use normal DMA on the RID for kernel controlled accesses?
>
> Using SVA simplifies the work submission, there is no need to do map/unmap.
> Just bind PASID with init_mm, then submit work directly either with ENQCMDS
> (supervisor version of ENQCMD) to a shared workqueue or put the supervisor
> PASID in the descriptor for dedicated workqueue.
That is not OK, protable drivers in Linux have to sue dma map/unmap
calls to manage cache coherence. PASID does not opt out of any of
that.
I dislike this whole idea a lot. A single driver should not opt itself
out of IOMMU based security "just because"
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists