linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFCv1 08/14] iommufd: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_SET_DEV

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: <ZlafEktUu5znDsNt@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 20:20:50 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "iommu@...ts.linux.dev"
	<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
	"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>, "vasant.hegde@....com"
	<vasant.hegde@....com>, "jon.grimm@....com" <jon.grimm@....com>,
	"santosh.shukla@....com" <santosh.shukla@....com>, "Dhaval.Giani@....com"
	<Dhaval.Giani@....com>, "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv1 08/14] iommufd: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_SET_DEV_ID ioctl

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 02:58:11AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 4:23 AM

> > What I mean is for regular vSMMU. Without VCMDQ, a regular vSMMU
> > on a multi-pSMMU setup will look like (e.g. three devices behind
> > different SMMUs):
> > |<------ VMM ------->|<------ kernel ------>|
> >        |-- viommu0 --|-- pSMMU0 --|
> > vSMMU--|-- viommu1 --|-- pSMMU1 --|--s2_hwpt
> >        |-- viommu2 --|-- pSMMU2 --|
> >
> > And device would attach to:
> > |<---- guest ---->|<--- VMM --->|<- kernel ->|
> >        |-- dev0 --|-- viommu0 --|-- pSMMU0 --|
> > vSMMU--|-- dev1 --|-- viommu1 --|-- pSMMU1 --|
> >        |-- dev2 --|-- viommu2 --|-- pSMMU2 --|
> >
> > When trapping a device cache invalidation: it is straightforward
> > by deciphering the virtual device ID to pick the viommu that the
> > device is attached to.
> 
> I understand how above works.
> 
> My question is why that option is chosen instead of going with 1:1
> mapping between vSMMU and viommu i.e. letting the kernel to
> figure out which pSMMU should be sent an invalidation cmd to, as
> how VT-d is virtualized.
> 
> I want to know whether doing so is simply to be compatible with
> what VCMDQ requires, or due to another untold reason.

Because we use viommu as a VMID holder for SMMU. So a pSMMU must
have its own viommu to store its VMID for a shared s2_hwpt:
        |-- viommu0 (VMIDx) --|-- pSMMU0 --|
 vSMMU--|-- viommu1 (VMIDy) --|-- pSMMU1 --|--s2_hwpt
        |-- viommu2 (VMIDz) --|-- pSMMU2 --|

Thanks
Nicolin