linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V1 1/5] swiotlb: Support allocating DMA memory from SWIOTLB

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: <CAGtprH-95FEUzpc-yxQMo87gpqgMxyz9W8tiWtu_ZHhMW-jjuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:03:33 +0530
From: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, 
	rientjes@...gle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, erdemaktas@...gle.com, 
	ackerleytng@...gle.com, jxgao@...gle.com, sagis@...gle.com, oupton@...gle.com, 
	peterx@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com, 
	pgonda@...gle.com, michael.roth@....com, thomas.lendacky@....com, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, 
	chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com, isaku.yamahata@...il.com, andrew.jones@...ux.dev, 
	corbet@....net, hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, 
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 1/5] swiotlb: Support allocating DMA memory from SWIOTLB

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:20 PM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temovname> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 05:52:47AM +0000, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> > Modify SWIOTLB framework to allocate DMA memory always from SWIOTLB.
> >
> > CVMs use SWIOTLB buffers for bouncing memory when using dma_map_* APIs
> > to setup memory for IO operations. SWIOTLB buffers are marked as shared
> > once during early boot.
> >
> > Buffers allocated using dma_alloc_* APIs are allocated from kernel memory
> > and then converted to shared during each API invocation. This patch ensures
> > that such buffers are also allocated from already shared SWIOTLB
> > regions. This allows enforcing alignment requirements on regions marked
> > as shared.
>
> But does it work in practice?
>
> Some devices (like GPUs) require a lot of DMA memory. So with this approach
> we would need to have huge SWIOTLB buffer that is unused in most VMs.
>

Current implementation limits the size of statically allocated SWIOTLB
memory pool to 1G. I was proposing to enable dynamic SWIOTLB for CVMs
in addition to aligning the memory allocations to hugepage sizes, so
that the SWIOTLB pool can be scaled up on demand.

The issue with aligning the pool areas to hugepages is that hugepage
allocation at runtime is not guaranteed. Guaranteeing the hugepage
allocation might need calculating the upper bound in advance, which
defeats the purpose of enabling dynamic SWIOTLB. I am open to
suggestions here.

> --
>   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov