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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZmihcEA+7rU6Yt8x@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:11:44 -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 Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:17:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:44:16PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:28:39PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 04:04:30PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, there should be no CD table decoding and no linking ASID to
> > > > > anything by the VMM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The ARM architecture is clean, the ASID can remain private to the VM,
> > > > > there is no reason for the VMM to understand it.
> > > > 
> > > > But a guest-level TLBI command usually has only ASID available to
> > > > know which pSMMU to dispatch the command. Without an ASID lookup
> > > > table, how could VMM then dispatch a command to the corresponding
> > > > pSMMU?
> > > 
> > > It can broadcast. The ARM architecture does not expect a N:1 mapping
> > > of SMMUs. This is why I think it is not such a good idea..
> > 
> > Hmm, I thought we had an agreed idea that we shouldn't broadcast
> > a TLBI (except global NH_ALL/VAA) for invalidation performance?
> 
> I wouldn't say agree, there are just lots of different trade offs to
> be made here. You can reduce broadcast by parsing the CD table from
> the VMM. You can reduce broadcast with multiple vSMMUs.
> 
> VMM needs to pick a design. I favour multiple vSMMUs.

Yea, having multiple vSMMUs for nesting too seems to be a cleaner
design. The thing is that we have to put a certain complexity in
the VMM, and it should be more efficient by having it at the boot
stage (creating multi-vSMMUs/PCIs and IORT nodes) v.s. runtime
(trappings and distributing at every command).

> > CD table walkthrough would be always done only by VMM, while the
> > lookup table could be created/maintained by the kernel. I feel a
> > vasid table could make sense since we maintain the vdev_id table
> > in the kernel space too.
> 
> I'm not convinced we should put such a micro optimization in the
> kernel. If the VMM cares about performance then split the vSMMU,
> otherwise lets just put all the mess in the VMM and give it the tools
> to manage the invalidation distribution.
> 
> In the long run things like vCMDQ are going to force the choice to
> multi-smmu, which is why I don't see too much value with investing in
> optimizing the single vSMMU case. The optimization can be done later
> if someone does have a use case.

I see. That makes sense to me.

Nicolin