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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1ac7e4c-e59f-43c8-a914-415a511beccc@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 17:24:31 +0800
From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
 "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
 "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
 "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
 "lukas@...ner.de" <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 5/5] iommu/vt-d: don't loop for timeout ATS
 Invalidation request forever


On 12/29/2023 4:17 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 9:10 PM
>>
>> On 12/28/2023 4:38 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 8:17 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -	if (rc == -EAGAIN)
>>>> +	if (rc == -EAGAIN && type !=QI_DIOTLB_TYPE && type !=
>>>> QI_DEIOTLB_TYPE)
>>>>    		goto restart;
>>>>
>>> this change is moot.
>>>
>>> -EAGAIN is set only when hardware detects a ATS invalidation completion
>>> timeout in qi_check_fault(). so above just essentially kills the restart logic.
>> This change is intended to break the restar login when device-TLB
>>
>> invalidation timeout happens, we don't know how long the ITE took
>>
>> if the device is just no reponse.
> if in the end the agreement is to remove the restart logic, then do it.
>
> it's not good to introduce a change which essentially kills the restart
> logic but still keeps the related code.

Here, the device-TLB invalidation, depends on devcies response,

no one could make sure the what the third party adapters will act.

but for those invalidation issued to iommu itself, should be more

likely to survive ?

Anyway, would like to see more comments.


Thanks,

Ethan


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ