linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Remove caching mode check before device TLB flush

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, 10 Apr 2024 18:38:00 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Remove caching mode check before
 device TLB flush

On 2024/4/10 17:14, Yi Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/4/10 16:02, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/4/10 14:30, Yi Liu wrote:
>>> On 2024/4/10 13:58, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> The Caching Mode (CM) of the Intel IOMMU indicates if the hardware
>>>> implementation caches not-present or erroneous translation-structure
>>>> entries except the first-stage translation. The caching mode is
>>>> irrelevant to the device TLB , therefore there is no need to check
>>>> it before a device TLB invalidation operation.
>>>>
>>>> iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() is called in map and unmap paths. The caching
>>>> mode check before device TLB invalidation will cause device TLB
>>>> invalidation always issued if IOMMU is not running in caching mode.
>>>> This is wrong and causes unnecessary performance overhead.
>>>
>>> I don't think the original code is wrong. As I replied before, if CM==0,
>>> the iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() is only called in unmap path, in which the
>>> @map is false. [1] The reason to make the change is to make the logic
>>> simpler. 🙂
>>
>> Oh, I see. There is a magic
>>
>>          if (cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) && !domain->use_first_level)
>>                  iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, domain, pfn, pages, 0, 1);
>>
>> in __mapping_notify_one().
>>
>> So if it's caching mode, then
>>
>>   - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will be called with @map=1 from
>>     __mapping_notify_one(), "!cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) || !map" is
>>     not true, and device TLB is not invalidated.
>>   - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will also be called with @map=0 from
>>     intel_iommu_tlb_sync(), device TLB is issued there.
>>
>> That's the expected behavior for caching mode.
>>
>> If it's not the caching mode, then
>>
>>   - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will be called with @map=0 from
>>     intel_iommu_tlb_sync(), device TLB is issued there.
>>
>> That's also the expected behavior.
>>
>> So the existing code is correct but obscure and difficult to understand,
>> right? If so, we should make this patch as a cleanup rather than a fix.
> 
> aha, yes. As the below table, iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() does flush device TLB
> as expected. But there is a NA case. When CM==0, it should not be possible
> to call iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() with @map==1 as cache invalidation is not
> required when CM==0. So the existing code logic is really confusing,
> checking @map is enough and clearer. Since the old code works, so perhaps
> no fix tag is needed. :)
> 
> +----+------+-----------+------------+
> |  \       |            |            |
> |   \ @map |            |            |
> | CM \     |      0     |     1      |
> |     \    |            |            |
> +------+---+------------+------------+
> |          |            |            |
> |     0    |      Y     |     NA     |
> +----------+------------+------------+
> |          |            |            |
> |     1    |      Y     |     N      |
> +----------+------------+------------+
> 
> Y means flush dev-TLB please
> N means no need to flush dev-TLB
> NA means not applied

Yes. We have the same understanding now. :-)

> 
> BTW. I think it is better to have the below change in a separate patch.
> The below change does fix a improper dev-TLB flushing behavior. Also
> how about Kevin's concern in the end of [1]. I didn't see your respond
> about it.

I had an offline discussion with him and I included the conclusion in
the commit message of this patch.

Best regards,
baolu