linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx

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: <CAKHBV24SLBNw-yWn3m6BtvvHUgD0h1e1QkEb1LrUcWSwpR85Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:20:04 +0800
From:   Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        robin.murphy@....com, nicolinc@...dia.com, jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx_desc

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:39 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't think this even works as nothing on the PASID path
> adds to the list that arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices() iterates over ??
>
> Then the remaining two calls:
>
> arm_smmu_share_asid(struct mm_struct *mm, u16 asid)
>         arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, 0, cd);
>
>         This is OK only if the sketchy assumption that the CD
>         we extracted for a conflicting ASID is not asigned to a PASID.
>
> static void arm_smmu_mm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm)
>         arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, &quiet_cd);
>
>         This doesn't work because we didn't add the master to the list
>         during __arm_smmu_sva_bind and this path is expressly working
>         on the PASID binds, not the RID binds.

Actually it is working on the RID attached domain (as returned by
iommu_get_domain_for_dev() at sva_bind time) not the SVA domain
here... The arm SVA implementation completely dismisses the SVA handle
(I also have a patch to fix this ;) .  Need to find the time to polish
and send out).