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]

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:01:32 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.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 Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:04:46AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:19:21PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> 
> > > IOTLB efficiency will suffer though when splitting 1p -> 2v while
> > > invalidation performance will suffer when joining 2p -> 1v.
> > 
> > I think the invalidation efficiency is actually solvable. So,
> > basically viommu_invalidate would receive a whole batch of cmds
> > and dispatch them to different pSMMUs (nested_domains/devices).
> > We already have a vdev_id table for devices, yet we just need a
> > new vasid table for nested_domains. Right?
> 
> You can't know the ASID usage of the hypervisor from the VM, unless
> you also inspect the CD table memory in the guest. That seems like
> something we should try hard to avoid.

Actually, even now as we put a dispatcher in VMM, VMM still does
decode the CD table to link ASID to s1_hwpt. Otherwise, it could
only broadcast a TLBI cmd to all pSMMUs.

Doing in the other way by moving it to the kernel, we'd just need
a pair of new ioctls and use them when VMM traps CFGI_CD cmds, so
kernel driver instead of VMM user driver manages the links between
ASIDs to nested domains. Either a master ASID or SVA ASIDs can be
linked to the same nested_domain that's allocated per vSTE.

> > With that being said, it would make the kernel design a bit more
> > complicated. And the VMM still has to separate the commands for
> > passthrough devices (HW iotlb) from commands for emulated devices
> > (emulated iotlb), unless we further split the topology at the VM
> > level to have a dedicated vSMMU for all passthrough devices --
> > then VMM could just forward its entire cmdq to the kernel without
> > deciphering every command (likely?).
> 
> I would not include the emulated devices in a shared SMMU.. For the
> same reason, we should try hard to avoid inspecting the page table
> memory.

I wouldn't like the idea of attaching emulated devices to a shared
vSMMU. Yet, mind elaborating why this would inspect the page table
memory? Or do you mean we should avoid VMM inspecting user tables?

> If a viommu is needed for emulated then virtio-iommu may be more
> appropriate..
> 
> That said I'm sure someone will want to do this, so as long as it is
> possible in the VMM, as slow as it may be, then it is fine.

Eric hasn't replied my previous query regarding how to design this,
yet I guess the same. And looks like Intel is doing so for emulated
devices, since there is only one intel_iommu instance in a VM.

Thanks
Nicolin