linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Introduce a replace API for device pasid

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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:16:39 +0800
From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "alex.williamson@...hat.com"
	<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>, "eric.auger@...hat.com"
	<eric.auger@...hat.com>, "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com"
	<mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, "chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com"
	<chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, "yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com"
	<yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>, "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
	"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, "lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "Duan,
 Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>, "joao.m.martins@...cle.com"
	<joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Introduce a replace API for device pasid

On 2024/3/20 20:38, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:29:39PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>> On 2024/3/19 00:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 04:11:41PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>>>
>>>> yes. how about your opinion? @Jason. I noticed the set_dev_pasid callback
>>>> and pasid_array update is under the group->lock, so update it should be
>>>> fine to adjust the order to update pasid_array after set_dev_pasid returns.
>>>
>>> Yes, it makes some sense
>>>
>>> But, also I would like it very much if we just have the core pass in
>>> the actual old domain as a an addition function argument.
>>
>> ok, this works too. For normal attach, just pass in a NULL old domain.
>>
>>> I think we have some small mistakes in multi-device group error
>>> unwinding for remove because the global xarray can't isn't actually
>>> going to be correct in all scenarios.
>>
>> do you mean the __iommu_remove_group_pasid() call in the below function?
>> Currently, it is called when __iommu_set_group_pasid() failed. However,
>> __iommu_set_group_pasid() may need to do remove itself when error happens,
>> so the helper can be more self-contained. Or you mean something else?
> 
> Yes..
> 
>> int iommu_attach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> 			      struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
>> {
>> 	/* Caller must be a probed driver on dev */
>> 	struct iommu_group *group = dev->iommu_group;
>> 	void *curr;
>> 	int ret;
>>
>> 	if (!domain->ops->set_dev_pasid)
>> 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> 	if (!group)
>> 		return -ENODEV;
>>
>> 	if (!dev_has_iommu(dev) || dev_iommu_ops(dev) != domain->owner)
>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> 	mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
>> 	curr = xa_cmpxchg(&group->pasid_array, pasid, NULL, domain, GFP_KERNEL);
>> 	if (curr) {
>> 		ret = xa_err(curr) ? : -EBUSY;
>> 		goto out_unlock;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	ret = __iommu_set_group_pasid(domain, group, pasid);
> 
> So here we have the xa set to the new domain

aha, yes. The underlying driver won't be able to get the correct domain
in the remove_dev_pasid callback.

>> 	if (ret) {
>> 		__iommu_remove_group_pasid(group, pasid);
> 
> And here we still have it set to the new domain even though some of
> the devices within the group failed to attach. The logic needs to be
> more like the main domain attach path where iterate and then undo only
> what we did

yes, the correct way is to undo what have been done before the fail
device. However, I somehow remember that pasid capability is only
available when the group is singleton. So iterate all devices of the
devices just means one device in fact. If this is true, then the
current code is fine although a bit confusing.

> And the whole thing is easier to reason about if an input argument
> specifies the current attached domain instead of having the driver
> read it from the xarray.

yep, will correct it as a fix patch.

-- 
Regards,
Yi Liu