linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] iommu: Add iommu_group_replace

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: <20220214124518.GU4160@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:45:18 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] iommu: Add iommu_group_replace_domain()

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:09:36PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-01-06 02:20, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Expose an interface to replace the domain of an iommu group for frameworks
> > like vfio which claims the ownership of the whole iommu group.
> 
> But if the underlying point is the new expectation that
> iommu_{attach,detach}_device() operate on the device's whole group where
> relevant, why should we invent some special mechanism for VFIO to be
> needlessly inconsistent?
> 
> I said before that it's trivial for VFIO to resolve a suitable device if it
> needs to; by now I've actually written the patch ;)
> 
> https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-rm/-/commit/9f37d8c17c9b606abc96e1f1001c0b97c8b93ed5

Er, how does locking work there? What keeps busdev from being
concurrently unplugged? How can iommu_group_get() be safely called on
this pointer?

All of the above only works normally inside a probe/remove context
where the driver core is blocking concurrent unplug and descruction.

I think I said this last time you brought it up that lifetime was the
challenge with this idea.

Jason