linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] iommu: Fix iommu_sva_bind

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: <MW5PR11MB5881E20A89840306C977F3FA89572@MW5PR11MB5881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 07:59:06 +0000
From: "Zhang, Tina" <tina.zhang@...el.com>
To: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, jean-philippe <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com"
	<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] iommu: Fix iommu_sva_bind_device to the same domain

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 2:19 PM
> To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>; Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>; jean-
> philippe <jean-philippe@...aro.org>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>;
> baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com; Zhang, Tina <tina.zhang@...el.com>
> Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Zhangfei Gao
> <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] iommu: Fix iommu_sva_bind_device to the same domain
> 
> The accelerator dev can provide multi-queue and bind to the same domain in
> multi-thread for better performance, and domain refcount takes care of it.
> 
> 'commit 092edaddb660 ("iommu: Support mm PASID 1:n with sva domains")'
> removes the possibility, so fix it
> 
> Fixs: '092edaddb660 ("iommu: Support mm PASID 1:n with sva domains")'
> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c index
> c3fc9201d0be..a95c8f3a5407 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct
> device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm
>  	/* Search for an existing domain. */
>  	list_for_each_entry(domain, &mm->iommu_mm->sva_domains, next)
> {
>  		ret = iommu_attach_device_pasid(domain, dev, iommu_mm-
> >pasid);
> -		if (!ret) {
> +		if (!ret || ret == -EBUSY) {
If rebinding is allowed, how could IOMMU core know if this invocation is intended (like the multi-thread case mentioned in the commit message) or is mistakenly invoked?

Thanks,
-Tina

>  			domain->users++;
>  			goto out;
>  		}
> @@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva
> *handle)
>  	struct device *dev = handle->dev;
> 
>  	mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock);
> -	iommu_detach_device_pasid(domain, dev, iommu_mm->pasid);
>  	if (--domain->users == 0) {
> +		iommu_detach_device_pasid(domain, dev, iommu_mm-
> >pasid);
>  		list_del(&domain->next);
>  		iommu_domain_free(domain);
>  	}
> --
> 2.34.1