[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211015110956.GC2744544@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 08:09:56 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"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>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 06/20] iommu: Add iommu_device_init[exit]_user_dma
interfaces
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:29:16AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Hi, Jason,
>
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:59 PM
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:38:35AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > /* If set the driver must call iommu_XX as the first action in probe() or
> > > * before it attempts to do DMA
> > > */
> > > bool suppress_dma_owner:1;
> >
> > It is not "attempts to do DMA" but more "operates the physical device
> > in any away"
> >
> > Not having ownership means another entity could be using user space
> > DMA to manipulate the device state and attack the integrity of the
> > kernel's programming of the device.
> >
>
> Does suppress_kernel_dma sounds better than suppress_dma_owner?
> We found the latter causing some confusion when doing internal
> code review. Somehow this flag represents "don't claim the kernel dma
> ownership during driver binding". suppress_dma_owner sounds the
> entire ownership is disabled...
If in doubt make it
suppress_iommu_whatever_the_api_is_that_isn't_called
> Another thing is about DMA_OWNER_SHARED, which is set to indicate
> no dma at all. Thinking more we feel that this flag is meaningless. Its
> sole purpose is to show compatibility to any USER/KERNEL ownership,
> and essentially the same semantics as a device which is not bound to
> any driver. So we plan to remove it then pci-stub just needs one line
> change to set the suppress flag. But want to check with you first in case
> any oversight.
It sounds reasonable, but also makes it much harder to find the few
places that have this special relationship - ie we can't grep for
DMA_OWNER_SHARED anymore.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists