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: <BN9PR11MB5433BCFCF3B0CB657E9BFE898CA39@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:05:29 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
CC:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.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: Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:27 PM
> 
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:15:24AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> 
> > So we can only tell userspace "No_snoop is not supported" (provided we
> > even want to allow them to enable No_snoop). Users in control of stage-1
> > tables can create non-cacheable mappings through MAIR attributes.
> 
> My point is that ARM is using IOMMU_CACHE to control the overall
> cachability of the DMA
> 
> ie not specifying IOMMU_CACHE requires using the arch specific DMA
> cache flushers.
> 
> Intel never uses arch specifc DMA cache flushers, and instead is
> abusing IOMMU_CACHE to mean IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP on DMA that
> is always
> cachable.

it uses IOMMU_CACHE to force all DMAs to snoop, including those which
has non_snoop flag and wouldn't snoop cache if iommu is disabled. Nothing
is blocked.

but why do you call it abuse? IOMMU_CACHE was first introduced for
Intel platform:

commit 9cf0669746be19a4906a6c48920060bcf54c708b
Author: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed Mar 18 15:33:07 2009 +0800

    intel-iommu: VT-d page table to support snooping control bit

    The user can request to enable snooping control through VT-d page table.

    Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>

> 
> These are different things and need different bits. Since the ARM path
> has a lot more code supporting it, I'd suggest Intel should change
> their code to use IOMMU_BLOCK_NO_SNOOP and abandon IOMMU_CACHE.

I didn't fully get this point. The end result is same, i.e. making the DMA
cache-coherent when IOMMU_CACHE is set. Or if you help define the
behavior of IOMMU_CACHE, what will you define now?

> 
> Which clarifies what to do here as uAPI - these things need to have
> different bits and Intel's should still have NO SNOOP in the
> name. What the no-snoop bit is called on other busses can be clarified
> in comments if that case ever arises.
> 
> Jason