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: <20220406130614.GC2120790@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:06:14 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/11] iommu/sva: Add iommu_domain type for SVA

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> a particular IOMMU instance, and potentially allocate separate domains for
> separate devices to represent the same address space, much like
> vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group() does.

I think this VFIO code also needs some more work, it currently assumes
that if the domain ops are the same then the domains are compatible,
and that is not true for ARM SMMU drivers.

I've been thinking of adding a domain callback 'can device attach' and
replacing the ops compare with that instead.

> It's not really worth IOMMU drivers trying to support a domain spanning
> potentially-heterogeneous instances internally, since they can't reasonably
> know what matters in any particular situation. 

In the long run I think it will be worth optimizing. If the SMMU
instances can share IOPTE memory then we get two wins - memory
reduction and reduced work to read dirty bits.

The dirty read in particular is very performance sensitive so if real
work loads have many SMMUs per VM it will become a pain point.

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ