linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Share sva domains with all devices bound to a mm

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:51:41 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Share sva domains with all devices bound to a mm

On 2023/8/9 17:44, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:18 AM
>>
>> On 2023/8/8 15:49, Tina Zhang wrote:
>>> A sva domain's lifetime begins with binding a device to a mm and ends
>>> by releasing all the bound devices from that sva domain. Technically,
>>> there could be more than one sva domain identified by the mm PASID for
>>> the use of bound devices issuing DMA transactions.
>>>
>>> To support mm PASID 1:n with sva domains, each mm needs to keep both
>> a
>>> reference list of allocated sva domains and the corresponding PASID.
>>> However, currently, mm struct only has one pasid field for sva usage,
>>> which is used to keep the info of an assigned PASID. That pasid field
>>> cannot provide sufficient info to build up the 1:n mapping between PASID
>>> and sva domains.
>> Is it more appropriate to have the same life cycle for sva domain and mm
>> pasid? I feel that they represent the same thing, that is, the address
>> space shared by mm to a device.
>>
> iirc it's a simplification to free mm pasid at __mmdrop() otherwise the
> implementation is tricky, but I don't remember all the detail...

Yeah, probably we could also free the sva domains in __mmdrop()? Remove
the refcount for sva domain just like what we did for pasid (at the
beginning we had refcount for each pasid...).

Best regards,
baolu