linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] iommu: Move global PASID allocation from SVA to core

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: <b3c543e0-699a-0779-fdd9-b799c5230da0@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 May 2023 14:21:25 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        vkoul@...nel.org
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Zanussi, Tom" <tom.zanussi@...el.com>,
        narayan.ranganathan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] iommu: Move global PASID allocation from SVA to
 core

On 5/20/23 4:32 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Global PASID can be used beyond SVA. For example, drivers that use
> Intel ENQCMD to submit work must use global PASIDs in that PASID
> is stored in a per CPU MSR. When such device need to submit work
> for in-kernel DMA with PASID, it must allocate PASIDs from the same
> global number space to avoid conflict.
> 
> This patch moves global PASID allocation APIs from SVA to IOMMU APIs.
> Reserved PASIDs, currently only RID_PASID, are excluded from the global
> PASID allocation.
> 
> It is expected that device drivers will use the allocated PASIDs to
> attach to appropriate IOMMU domains for use.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan<jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> v6: explicitly exclude reserved a range from SVA PASID allocation
>      check mm PASID compatibility with device
> v5: move PASID range check inside API so that device drivers only pass
>      in struct device* (Kevin)
> v4: move dummy functions outside ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA (Baolu)
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c     | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   include/linux/iommu.h     | 10 ++++++++++
>   3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
> index 9821bc44f5ac..7fe8e977d8eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
> @@ -10,33 +10,33 @@
>   #include "iommu-sva.h"
>   
>   static DEFINE_MUTEX(iommu_sva_lock);
> -static DEFINE_IDA(iommu_global_pasid_ida);
>   
>   /* Allocate a PASID for the mm within range (inclusive) */
> -static int iommu_sva_alloc_pasid(struct mm_struct *mm, ioasid_t min, ioasid_t max)
> +static int iommu_sva_alloc_pasid(struct mm_struct *mm, struct device *dev)
>   {
> +	ioasid_t pasid;
>   	int ret = 0;
>   
> -	if (min == IOMMU_PASID_INVALID ||
> -	    max == IOMMU_PASID_INVALID ||
> -	    min == 0 || max < min)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>   	if (!arch_pgtable_dma_compat(mm))
>   		return -EBUSY;
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock);
>   	/* Is a PASID already associated with this mm? */
>   	if (mm_valid_pasid(mm)) {
> -		if (mm->pasid < min || mm->pasid > max)
> -			ret = -EOVERFLOW;
> +		if (mm->pasid <= dev->iommu->max_pasids)
> +			goto out;
> +		dev_err(dev, "current mm PASID %d exceeds device range %d!",
> +			mm->pasid, dev->iommu->max_pasids);
> +		ret = -ERANGE;
>   		goto out;
>   	}

Nit: Above is just refactoring, so it's better to keep the code behavior
consistent. For example, no need to change the error# from -EOVERFLOW to
-ERANGE, and no need to leave a new kernel message.

Anyway, if you think these changes are helpful, it's better to have them
in separated patches.

In the end, perhaps we can simply have code like this:

	if (mm_valid_pasid(mm)) {
		if (mm->pasid > dev->iommu->max_pasids)
			ret = -EOVERFLOW;
		goto out;
	}

Others look good to me, with above addressed,

Reviewed-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>

Best regards,
baolu