linux-kernel - Re: [RFC RESEND 00/16] Split IOMMU DMA mapping operation to two steps

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]

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 17:20:22 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"jack@...e.com" <jack@...e.com>, Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC RESEND 00/16] Split IOMMU DMA mapping operation to two
 steps

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:43:28AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I don't think they are so fundamentally different, at least in our
> past conversations I never came out with the idea we should burden the
> driver with two different flows based on what kind of alignment the
> transfer happens to have.

Then we talked past each other..

> At least the RDMA drivers could productively use just a page aligned
> interface. But I didn't think this would make BIO users happy so never
> even thought about it..

page aligned is generally the right thing for the block layer.  NVMe
for example already requires that anyway due to PRPs.

> > The total transfer size should just be passed in by the callers and
> > be known, and there should be no offset.
> 
> The API needs the caller to figure out the total number of IOVA pages
> it needs, rounding up the CPU ranges to full aligned pages. That
> becomes the IOVA allocation.

Yes, it's a basic align up to the granularity asuming we don't bother
with non-aligned transfers.

> 
> > So if we want to efficiently be able to handle these cases we need
> > two APIs in the driver and a good framework to switch between them.
> 
> But, what does the non-page-aligned version look like? Doesn't it
> still look basically like this?

I'd just rather have the non-aligned case for those who really need
it be the loop over map single region that is needed for the direct
mapping anyway.

> 
> And what is the actual difference if the input is aligned? The caller
> can assume it doesn't need to provide a per-range dma_addr_t during
> unmap.

A per-range dma_addr_t doesn't really make sense for the aligned and
coalesced case.

> It still can't assume the HW programming will be linear due to the P2P
> !ACS support.
> 
> And it still has to call an API per-cpu range to actually program the
> IOMMU.
> 
> So are they really so different to want different APIs? That strikes
> me as a big driver cost.

To not have to store a dma_address range per CPU range that doesn't
actually get used at all.