linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 10/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_DEVICE_GET

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: <BN9PR11MB5433D26EFA94F59756AF91838CA29@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:30:09 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
CC:     "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
        "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 10/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_DEVICE_GET_INFO

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:41 AM
> 
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:38:38PM +0800, Liu Yi L wrote:
> > After a device is bound to the iommufd, userspace can use this interface
> > to query the underlying iommu capability and format info for this device.
> > Based on this information the user then creates I/O address space in a
> > compatible format with the to-be-attached devices.
> >
> > Device cookie which is registered at binding time is used to mark the
> > device which is being queried here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c | 68
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/uapi/linux/iommu.h      | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> > index e16ca21e4534..641f199f2d41 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd.c
> > @@ -117,6 +117,71 @@ static int iommufd_fops_release(struct inode
> *inode, struct file *filep)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static struct device *
> > +iommu_find_device_from_cookie(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx, u64
> dev_cookie)
> > +{
> 
> We have an xarray ID for the device, why are we allowing userspace to
> use the dev_cookie as input?
> 
> Userspace should always pass in the ID. The only place dev_cookie
> should appear is if the kernel generates an event back to
> userspace. Then the kernel should return both the ID and the
> dev_cookie in the event to allow userspace to correlate it.
> 

A little background.

In earlier design proposal we discussed two options. One is to return
an kernel-allocated ID (label) to userspace. The other is to have user
register a cookie and use it in iommufd uAPI. At that time the two
options were discussed exclusively and the cookie one is preferred.

Now you instead recommended a mixed option. We can follow it for
sure if nobody objects.

Thanks
Kevin