[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210607180104.GK1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:01:04 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:51:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/06/21 05:25, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > Per Intel SDM wbinvd is a privileged instruction. A process on the
> > host has no privilege to execute it.
>
> (Half of) the point of the kernel is to do privileged tasks on the
> processes' behalf. There are good reasons why a process that uses VFIO
> (without KVM) could want to use wbinvd, so VFIO lets them do it with a ioctl
> and adequate checks around the operation.
Yes, exactly.
You cannot write a correct VFIO application for hardware that uses the
no-snoop bit without access to wbinvd.
KVM or not does not matter.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists