linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] iommufd: Only enforce_cache

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: <20231021163907.GM3952@nvidia.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2023 13:39:07 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.l.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] iommufd: Only enforce_cache_coherency when
 allocating hwpt

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 09:32:32AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2023/10/21 8:37, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20231020135501.GG3952@nvidia.com/
> > The conversation above concluded that a hwpt should only enforce cache
> > coherency per device at the stage of its allocation, and it should not
> > be changed or updated in the attach/replace routines.
> > 
> > Add two patches dropping the enforce_cache_coherency calls from attach
> > and replce routines respectively, since they were introduced with two
> > different commits.
> > 
> > Nicolin Chen (2):
> >    iommufd/device: Drop enforce_cache_coherency in
> >      iommufd_device_do_replace
> >    iommufd/device: Drop enforce_cache_coherency in
> >      iommufd_hw_pagetable_attach
> > 
> >   drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c          | 19 ++-----------------
> >   drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c    |  2 +-
> >   drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd_private.h |  1 -
> >   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Kevin and Jason,
> 
> With these two fixes, there's no issue in the intel driver any more. Do
> I understand it right?

I think so, as long as it is an allocation only time flag there isn't
much trouble for the driver.

VFIO, I think, still does the old algorithm however.

Jason