[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58ae9095-28f2-a44a-b0e5-be82e1eae9d9@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:24:40 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain
On 2023/8/2 15:46, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:14 PM
>>
>> +static int intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(struct iommu_domain
>> *domain,
>> + void *user_data)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc *req = user_data;
>> + struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate *inv_info = user_data;
>> + struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain);
>> + unsigned int entry_size = inv_info->entry_size;
>> + u64 uptr = inv_info->inv_data_uptr;
>> + u64 nr_uptr = inv_info->entry_nr_uptr;
>> + struct device_domain_info *info;
>> + u32 entry_nr, index;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (get_user(entry_nr, (uint32_t __user *)u64_to_user_ptr(nr_uptr)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + for (index = 0; index < entry_nr; index++) {
>> + ret = copy_struct_from_user(req, sizeof(*req),
>> + u64_to_user_ptr(uptr + index *
>> entry_size),
>> + entry_size);
>
> If continuing this direction then the driver should also check minsz etc.
> for struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate and iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc
> since they are uAPI and subject to change.
Agreed.
>
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err_ratelimited("Failed to fetch invalidation
>> request\n");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (req->__reserved || (req->flags &
>> ~IOMMU_VTD_QI_FLAGS_LEAF) ||
>> + !IS_ALIGNED(req->addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dmar_domain->lock, flags);
>> + list_for_each_entry(info, &dmar_domain->devices, link)
>> + intel_nested_invalidate(info->dev, dmar_domain,
>> + req->addr, req->npages);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dmar_domain->lock, flags);
>
> Disabling interrupt while invalidating iotlb is certainly unacceptable.
>
> Actually there is no need to walk devices. Under dmar_domain there
> is already a list of attached iommu's.
Walking device is only necessary when invalidating device TLB. For iotlb
invalidation, it only needs to know the iommu's.
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists