linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the hw

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: <Y9gfbx/fszb0aTJn@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:50:07 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc:     kevin.tian@...el.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the
 hw_pagetable usage by device

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:27:37AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:02:25AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:18:09PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > 
> > > Currently, hw_pagetable tracks the attached devices using a device list.
> > > When attaching the first device to the kernel-managed hw_pagetable, it
> > > should be linked to IOAS. When detaching the last device from this hwpt,
> > > the link with IOAS should be removed too. And this first-or-last device
> > > check is done with list_empty(hwpt->devices).
> > > 
> > > However, with a nested configuration, when a device is attached to the
> > > user-managed stage-1 hw_pagetable, it will be added to this user-managed
> > > hwpt's device list instead of the kernel-managed stage-2 hwpt's one. And
> > > this breaks the logic for a kernel-managed hw_pagetable link/disconnect
> > > to/from IOAS/IOPT. e.g. the stage-2 hw_pagetable would be linked to IOAS
> > > multiple times if multiple device is attached, but it will become empty
> > > as soon as one device detached.
> > 
> > Why this seems really weird to say.
> > 
> > The stage 2 is linked explicitly to the IOAS that drives it's
> > map/unmap
> > 
> > Why is there any implicit activity here? There should be no implicit
> > attach of the S2 to an IOAS ever.
> 
> I think this is supposed to say the following use case:
> 
> Two stage-1 hwpts share the same parent s2_hwpt:
> 
> attach device1 to stage-1 hwpt1:
> 	...
> 	if (list_empty(s1_hwpt1->devices))		// empty; true
> 		iopt_table_add_domain(s2_hwpt->domain); // do once
> 	s1_hwpt1 device list cnt++;
> 	...

No, this doesn't make sense.

The s2_hwpt should be created explicitly, not using autodomains

When it is created it should be linked to a single IOAS and that is
when iopt_table_add_domain() should have been called.

The S1 attach should do *nothing* to a S2.

Jason