linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/14] iommu: Add iommu_get_unmanaged

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: <ZAtS21vqhp7LqA+B@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:55:07 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, will@...nel.org,
        kevin.tian@...el.com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, joro@...tes.org,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/14] iommu: Add iommu_get_unmanaged_domain helper

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:41:01AM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:

> I tend to agree with Robin here. This was first introduced by
> 
> [PATCH v7 21/22] iommu/dma: Add support for mapping MSIs <https://lore.kernel.org/all/2273af20d844bd618c6a90b57e639700328ebf7f.1473695704.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/#r>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2273af20d844bd618c6a90b57e639700328ebf7f.1473695704.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/

Presumably it had to use the iommu_get_domain_for_dev() instead of
iommu_get_dma_domain() to support ARM 32 arm-iommu. Ie it is poking
into the arm-iommu owned domain as well. VFIO just ended being the
same flow

> even before the support un VFIO use case which came later on. So
> using the "unmanaged" terminology sounds improper to me, at least.
> Couldn't we use a parent/child terminology as used in the past in

No objection to a better name...

Actually how about if we write it like this? Robin would you be
happier? I think it much more clearly explains why this function is
special within our single domain attachment model.

"get_unmanaged_msi_domain" seems like a much more narrowly specific to
the purpose name.

int iommu_dma_prepare_msi(struct msi_desc *desc, phys_addr_t msi_addr)
{
	struct device *dev = msi_desc_to_dev(desc);
	struct iommu_domain *domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev);
	struct iommu_dma_msi_page *msi_page;
	static DEFINE_MUTEX(msi_prepare_lock); /* see below */

	desc->iommu_cookie = NULL;

	/*
	 * This probably shouldn't happen as the ARM32 systems should only have
	 * NULL if arm-iommu has been disconnected during setup/destruction.
	 * Assume it is an identity domain.
	 */
	if (!domain)
		return 0;

	/* Caller is expected to use msi_addr for the page */
	if (domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY)
		return 0;

	/*
	 * The current domain is some driver opaque thing. We assume the
	 * driver/user knows what it is doing regarding ARM ITS MSI pages and we
	 * want to try to install the page into some kind of kernel owned
	 * unmanaged domain. Eg for nesting this will install the ITS page into
	 * the S2 domain and then we assume that the S1 domain has independently
	 * made it mapped at the same address.
	 */
	// FIXME wrap in a function
	if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED &&
	    domain->ops->get_unmanged_msi_domain)
		domain = domain->ops->get_unmanged_msi_domain(domain);

	if (!domain || domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED)
		return -EINVAL;

	// ???
	if (!domain->iova_cookie)
		return 0;

	/*
	 * In fact the whole prepare operation should already be serialised by
	 * irq_domain_mutex further up the callchain, but that's pretty subtle
	 * on its own, so consider this locking as failsafe documentation...
	 */
	mutex_lock(&msi_prepare_lock);
	msi_page = iommu_dma_get_msi_page(dev, msi_addr, domain);
	mutex_unlock(&msi_prepare_lock);

	msi_desc_set_iommu_cookie(desc, msi_page);

	if (!msi_page)
		return -ENOMEM;
	return 0;
}

Jason