[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5433C616093C8DDA5A859C2F8CB99@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 01:29:16 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.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
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...
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.
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists