linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/7] Support in-kernel DMA with PASID and SVA

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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:50:10 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, mike.campin@...el.com,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Support in-kernel DMA with PASID and SVA

Hi Jason,

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 08:59:18 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:54:52AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:32 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> >  
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:43:33PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > >  
> > > > So do we have a case where devices can directly access the kernel's
> > > > data structure such as a list/graph/tree with pointers to a kernel
> > > > virtual address? then devices don't need to translate the address
> > > > of pointers in a structure. I assume this is one of the most useful
> > > > features userspace SVA can provide.  
> > >
> > > AFIACT that is the only good case for KVA, but it is also completely
> > > against the endianess, word size and DMA portability design of the
> > > kernel.
> > >
> > > Going there requires some new set of portable APIs for gobally
> > > coherent KVA dma.  
> > 
> > yep. I agree. it would be very weird if accelerators/gpu are sharing
> > kernel' data struct, but for each "DMA" operation - reading or writing
> > the data struct, we have to call dma_map_single/sg or
> > dma_sync_single_for_cpu/device etc. It seems once devices and cpus
> > are sharing virtual address(SVA), code doesn't need to do explicit
> > map/sync each time.  
> 
That is what we have today with sva_bind_device.
> No, it still need to do something to manage visibility from the
> current CPU to the DMA - it might not be flushing a cache, but it is
> probably a arch specific CPU barrier instruction.
> 
Are you talking about iommu_dma_sync_single_for_cpu(), this is not SVA
specific, right?

On platforms that are DMA snooped, this barrier is not needed. But I think
your point is that once we convert to DMA API, the sync/barrier is covered
by DMA APIs if !dev_is_dma_coherent(dev). Then all archs are good.

We could also add a check for dev_is_dma_coherent(dev) before using SVA.

> Jason


Thanks,

Jacob