linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_viommu_cache

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: <20240914145057.GV58321@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 11:50:57 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.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-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
	"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	"mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
	"mshavit@...gle.com" <mshavit@...gle.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com" <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	"smostafa@...gle.com" <smostafa@...gle.com>,
	"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/19] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
 arm_smmu_viommu_cache_invalidate

On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 02:33:59AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 7:08 AM
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:13:01AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > 
> > > Probably there is a good reason e.g. for simplification or better
> > > aligned with hw accel stuff. But it's not explained clearly so far.
> > 
> > Probably the most concrete thing is if you have a direct assignment
> > invalidation queue (ie DMA'd directly by HW) then it only applies to a
> > single pIOMMU and invalidation commands placed there are unavoidably
> > limited in scope.
> > 
> > This creates a representation problem, if we have a vIOMMU that spans
> > many pIOMMUs but invalidations do some subset how to do we model
> > that. Just saying the vIOMMU is linked to the pIOMMU solves this
> > nicely.
> > 
> 
> yes that is a good reason.
> 
> btw do we expect the VMM to try-and-fail when deciding whether a
> new vIOMMU object is required when creating a new vdev?

I think there was some suggestion the getinfo could return this, but
also I think qemu needs to have a command line that matches physical
so maybe it needs some sysfs?

Jason