linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use the master-owned s1

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: <ZK98tZ2iMcRu4Jlf@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:25:25 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To:     Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
CC:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        <jgg@...dia.com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use the master-owned s1_cfg

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 06:57:33PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 02:37:17PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
>  
> > Insert CDs for STAGE_1 domains into a CD table owned by the
> > arm_smmu_master. Remove the CD table that was owned by arm_smmu_domain.
> 
> > @@ -718,10 +718,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {
> > 
> >         enum arm_smmu_domain_stage              stage;
> >         union {
> > -               struct {
> >                 struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc        cd;
> > -               struct arm_smmu_s1_cfg          s1_cfg;
> > -               };
> >                 struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg          s2_cfg;
> >         };
> 
> So the arm_smmu_domain looks like an object representing either:
> 1) a CD table + (if !IDENTITY) an S1 IOPT for default substream
> 2) an S2 IOPT

["]
> I wonder if we need something like struct arm_smmu_subdomain to
> represent a substream, because now an IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA domain is
> represented by this struct arm_smmu_domain too, which is neither
> of the two cases in the list above.
["]

I got this part incorrect: an SVA domain is actually represented
by an arm_smmu_sva_domain, so there's no nested arm_smmu_domain
situation. And we use arm_smmu_domain for other purpose, where I
got confused.

Please ignore this part, though I am still wondering if we could
name it in a way having a clear topology.

Thanks
Nicolin