linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

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: <c3fb5e4f-a906-bdee-7b34-533f36ba59f7@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:31:13 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

On 9/23/22 08:28, Ashok Raj wrote:
>>
>> I thought devices also cached address translation responses from the
>> IOMMU and stashed them in their own device-local TLB.  If the device is
>> unaware of the tags, then how does device TLB invalidation work?  Would
> This is coming a full circle now :-)
> 
> Since the device doesn't understand tagging, SVM and tagging aren't
> compatible. If you need SVM, you can only send sanitized pointers to the
> device period. In fact our page-request even looks for canonical checks
> before doing the page-faulting.
> 
>> all device TLB flushes be full flushes of the devices TLB?  If something
>> tried to use single-address invalidation, it would need to invalidate
>> every possible tag alias because the device wouldn't know that the tags
>> *are* tags instead of actual virtual addresses.
> Once tagging is extended into the PCI SIG, and devices know to work with
> them, so will the IOMMU, then they can all play in the same field. Until
> then they are isolated, or let SVM only work with untagged VA's.

But, the point that Kirill and I were getting at is still that devices
*have* a role to play here.  The idea that this can be hidden at the
IOMMU layer is pure fantasy.  Right?