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 14:16:36 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     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>,
        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

On 2022/5/12 13:44, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 1:17 PM
>>
>> On 2022/5/12 13:01, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>
>> It also includes the device information that the domain has been
>> attached. So the sva_unbind() looks like this:
>>
>> /**
>>    * iommu_sva_unbind_device() - Remove a bond created with
>> iommu_sva_bind_device
>>    * @handle: the handle returned by iommu_sva_bind_device()
>>    *
>>    * Put reference to a bond between device and address space. The device
>> should
>>    * not be issuing any more transaction for this PASID. All outstanding page
>>    * requests for this PASID must have been flushed to the IOMMU.
>>    */
>> void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle)
>>
>> It's fine to replace the iommu_sva with iommu_sva_domain for sva handle,
>> if we can include the device in the unbind() interface.
> 
> can we just have unbind(domain, device)?

Yes. With this, we can remove bond.

This could be done in below phase 2.

> 
>>
>> Anyway, I'd expect to achieve all these in two steps:
>>
>> - sva and iopf refactoring, only iommu internal changes;
>> - sva interface refactoring, only interface changes.
>>
>> Does above work?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> baolu

Best regards,
baolu