linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/10] iommu/riscv: support nested iommu for creating domains owned by userspace

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: <Zn858MB9/t1qltV2@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:32:16 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
	tjeznach@...osinc.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, kevin.tian@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/10] iommu/riscv: support nested iommu for
 creating domains owned by userspace

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 05:03:41PM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
> > > +
> > > +             if (!dc.fsc || dc.iohgatp) {
> > > +                     dev_dbg(dev, "Wrong page table from user data\n");
> > > +                     if (copy_to_user(event_user, &event, event_len))
> > > +                             return -EFAULT;
> > > +             }
> > > +
> > > +             /* Save DC of stage-1 from user data */
> > > +             memcpy(&info->dc_user,
> > > +                    riscv_iommu_get_dc(iommu, fwspec->ids[i]),
> >
> > This does not seem right, the fwspec shouldn't be part of domain
> > allocation, even arguably for nesting. The nesting domain should
> > represent the user_dc only. Any customization of kernel controlled bits
> > should be done during attach only, nor do I really understand why this
> > is looping over all the fwspecs but only memcpying the last one..
> >
> 
> The fwspec is used to get the value of current dc, because we want to
> also back up the address of second stage table (i.e. iohgatp), The
> reason is that this value will be cleaned when device is attached to
> the blocking domain, before the device attaches to s1 domain, we can't
> get the original value of iohgatp anymore when attach device to s1
> domain.

This is wrong, you get the value of iohgatp from the S2 domain the
nest knows directly. You must never make assumptions about domain
attach order or rely on the current value of the HW tables to
construct any attachment.

Follow the design like ARM has now where the value of the device table
entry is computed wholly from scratch using only the contents of the
domain pointer, including combining the S1 and S2 domain information.

And then you need to refactor and use the programmer I wrote for ARM
to be able to do the correct hitless transitions without a V=0
step. It is not too hard but will clean this all up.

> > > +/**
> > > + * struct iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu - RISCV IOMMU stage-1 device context table
> > > + *                                 info (IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_RISCV_IOMMU)
> > > + * @dc_len: Length of device context
> > > + * @dc_uptr: User pointer to the address of device context
> > > + * @event_len: Length of an event record
> > > + * @out_event_uptr: User pointer to the address of event record
> > > + */
> > > +struct iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu {
> > > +     __aligned_u64 dc_len;
> > > +     __aligned_u64 dc_uptr;
> >
> > Do we really want this to be a pointer? ARM just inlined it in the
> > struct, why not do that?
> >
> > > +     __aligned_u64 event_len;
> > > +     __aligned_u64 out_event_uptr;
> > > +};
> >
> > Similar here too, why not just inline the response memory?
> 
> I think we can just inline them, just like what we do in the
> 'iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu_invalidate'. does I understand correctly?

Yeah I think so

Jason