linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] iommu: Add helper to set iopf handler for domain

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:40:15 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] iommu: Add helper to set iopf handler for domain

On 2023/8/11 3:18, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 01:48:37PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> To avoid open code everywhere.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/iommu.h | 11 ++++++++++-
>>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Seems like overkill at this point..
> 
> Also, I think this is probably upside down.
> 
> We want to create the domains as fault enabled in the first place.
> 
> A fault enabled domain should never be attached to something that
> cannot support faults. It should also not support changing the fault
> handler while it exists.
> 
> Thus at the creation point would be the time to supply the fault handler
> as part of requesting faulting.
> 
> Taking an existing domain and making it faulting enabled is going to
> be really messy in all the corner cases.

Yes. Agreed.

> 
> My advice (and Robin will probably hate me), is to define a new op:
> 
> struct domain_alloc_paging_args {
>         struct fault_handler *fault_handler;
>         void *fault_data
> };
> 
> struct iommu_domain *domain_alloc_paging2(struct device *dev, struct
>         domain_alloc_paging_args *args)
> 
> The point would be to leave the majority of drivers using the
> simplified, core assisted, domain_alloc_paging() interface and they
> just don't have to touch any of this stuff at all.
> 
> Obviously if handler is given then the domain will be initialized as
> faulting.

Perhaps we also need an internal helper for iommu drivers to check the
iopf capability of the domain.

Best regards,
baolu