linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Perform invalidations over installed

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: <CAKHBV24L7pTajkStWCRiW7976+B8VtDHRDpo+Emta0RshkvRhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:33:36 +0800
From:   Michael Shavit <mshavit@...gle.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        will@...nel.org, nicolinc@...dia.com, tina.zhang@...el.com,
        jean-philippe@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Perform invalidations over installed_smmus

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 9:51 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:44:55AM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-08-17 20:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > It is certainly wrong to skip invalidations generated for any other
> > > > reason.
> > > >
> > > >  From what I can tell SVA domains should have their CD table entry
> > > > programmed with "ASET=0" and normal paging domains should be
> > > > programmed with "ASET=1". This causes only the SVA domains to listen
> > > > to the BTM invalidations.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Robin.
> >
> > Would it be fair to rename arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (or move into
> > arm-smmu-v3-sva) to make it explicit that it shouldn't be used outside
> > of SVA then? Or add a parameter such as skip_btm_capable_devices.
>
> ???
>
> arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid() is generally used in many places and has
> nothing to do with BTM..
>
> Did you mean arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid ?

Whoops yes that's what I meant.


>
> Broadly, invalidation is not SVA specific..
>
> Notice that arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid() already duplicates
> arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain().
>
> IMHO I would split the ATC step out of arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(),
> get rid of arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(), and have the mmu notifier
> just do as it already does:
>
>         if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM))
>                 arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain_no_atc(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid,
>                                             PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain);
>         arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain(smmu_domain, start, size);
>
> And make arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain() just call
>    arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain_no_atc();
>    arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain();

That's a nice clean-up but doesn't really solve the problem faced by this patch.

This patch series eliminates the smmu_domain->smmu handle, replacing
it for a list of SMMUs. So SVA can no longer optimize the
arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid call away by checking whether the SMMU BTM
feature is enabled since there's now a list of SMMUs with possibly
heterogeneous support for the feature. Since there's now a loop over a
series of SMMUs inside arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid, it makes sense to
move the check into that loop. This technically works because only SVA
is calling arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid but can (IMO) risk introducing
bugs in the future since it's not obvious from the function name.

The suggestion was then to introduce a parameter to
arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid (or arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain_no_atc)
to make this behavior explicit in the API.