linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v6 08/12] iommu/sva: Use attach/detach_pasid

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 05:01:12 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        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 v6 08/12] iommu/sva: Use attach/detach_pasid_dev in SVA
 interfaces

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 11:03 AM
> 
> On 2022/5/11 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> Also, given the current arrangement it might make sense to have a
> >>> struct iommu_domain_sva given that no driver is wrappering this in
> >>> something else.
> >> Fair enough. How about below wrapper?
> >>
> >> +struct iommu_sva_domain {
> >> +       /*
> >> +        * Common iommu domain header,*must*  be put at the top
> >> +        * of the structure.
> >> +        */
> >> +       struct iommu_domain domain;
> >> +       struct mm_struct *mm;
> >> +       struct iommu_sva bond;
> >> +}
> >>
> >> The refcount is wrapped in bond.
> > I'm still not sure that bond is necessary
> 
> "bond" is the sva handle that the device drivers get through calling
> iommu_sva_bind().
> 

'bond' was required before because we didn't have a domain to wrap
the page table at that time.

Now we have a domain and it is 1:1 associated to bond. Probably
make sense now by just returning the domain as the sva handle
instead?