| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 15:09:07 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] arm-smmu-v3/sva: Add SVA domain support
On 2022/5/4 02:12, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 09:48:37AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> Add support for SVA domain allocation and provide an SVA-specific
>> iommu_domain_ops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 14 +++++++
>> .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 21 ++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> index cd48590ada30..7631c00fdcbd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> @@ -759,6 +759,10 @@ struct iommu_sva *arm_smmu_sva_bind(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm,
>> void arm_smmu_sva_unbind(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> u32 arm_smmu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void);
>> +int arm_smmu_sva_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);
>> +void arm_smmu_sva_detach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);
>> #else /* CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA */
>> static inline bool arm_smmu_sva_supported(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> @@ -804,5 +808,15 @@ static inline u32 arm_smmu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle)
>> }
>>
>> static inline void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void) {}
>> +
>> +static inline int arm_smmu_sva_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
>> +{
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void arm_smmu_sva_detach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev,
>> + ioasid_t id) {}
>> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA */
>> #endif /* _ARM_SMMU_V3_H */
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> index c623dae1e115..3b843cd3ed67 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> @@ -541,3 +541,45 @@ void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void)
>> */
>> mmu_notifier_synchronize();
>> }
>> +
>> +int arm_smmu_sva_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + struct iommu_sva *handle;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = iommu_sva_domain_mm(domain);
>> +
>> + if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA || !mm)
>
> We wouldn't get that far with a non-SVA domain since iommu_sva_domain_mm()
> would dereference a NULL pointer. Could you move it after the domain->type
> check, and maybe add a WARN_ON()? It could help catch issues in future
> API changes.
Sure. I will make it like this,
int arm_smmu_sva_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
{
int ret = 0;
struct mm_struct *mm;
struct iommu_sva *handle;
if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA)
return -EINVAL;
mm = iommu_sva_domain_mm(domain);
if (WARN_ON(!mm))
return -ENODEV;
... ...
>
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&sva_lock);
>> + handle = __arm_smmu_sva_bind(dev, mm);
>> + if (IS_ERR(handle))
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
>> + mutex_unlock(&sva_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void arm_smmu_sva_detach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_smmu_bond *bond = NULL, *t;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = iommu_sva_domain_mm(domain);
>> + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&sva_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(t, &master->bonds, list) {
>> + if (t->mm == mm) {
>> + bond = t;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!WARN_ON(!bond) && refcount_dec_and_test(&bond->refs)) {
>> + list_del(&bond->list);
>> + arm_smmu_mmu_notifier_put(bond->smmu_mn);
>> + kfree(bond);
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&sva_lock);
>> +}
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index afc63fce6107..bd80de0bad98 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -1995,10 +1995,31 @@ static bool arm_smmu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void arm_smmu_sva_domain_free(struct iommu_domain *domain)
>> +{
>> + kfree(domain);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_sva_domain_ops = {
>> + .attach_dev_pasid = arm_smmu_sva_attach_dev_pasid,
>> + .detach_dev_pasid = arm_smmu_sva_detach_dev_pasid,
>> + .free = arm_smmu_sva_domain_free,
>> +};
>> +
>> static struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_domain_alloc(unsigned type)
>> {
>> struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain;
>>
>> + if (type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA) {
>> + struct iommu_domain *domain;
>> +
>> + domain = kzalloc(sizeof(*domain), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (domain)
>> + domain->ops = &arm_smmu_sva_domain_ops;
>> +
>> + return domain;
>> + }
>> +
>
> I'd prefer moving all of this to arm-smmu-v3-sva.c and just call
> arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc() here
Sure.
>
> Otherwise the patch looks fine. I'll rework the driver when I find some
> time, because we can now remove arm_smmu_bond and move smmu_mn to the SVA
> domain, maybe also remove sva_lock but I haven't thought it through.
Yes. Intel SVA code also needs further cleanup. It's in my non-urgent
task list.
>
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
>> if (type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED &&
>> type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA &&
>> type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA_FQ &&
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists