linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function to update 256-bit DTE

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: <20241003185412.GD1365916@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:54:12 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, joro@...tes.org,
	robin.murphy@....com, vasant.hegde@....com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
	jon.grimm@....com, santosh.shukla@....com, pandoh@...gle.com,
	kumaranand@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function to update
 256-bit DTE

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:15:53PM +0700, Suthikulpanit, Suravee wrote:
> On 9/27/2024 2:46 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 05:18:01PM +0000, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > 
> > ....
> > 
> > > +	if (!(ptr->data[0] & DTE_FLAG_V)) {
> > > +		/* Existing DTE is not valid. */
> > > +		write_upper(ptr, new);
> > > +		write_lower(ptr, new);
> > > +		iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +	} else if (!(new->data[0] & DTE_FLAG_V)) {
> > > +		/* Existing DTE is valid. New DTE is not valid.  */
> > > +		write_lower(ptr, new);
> > > +		write_upper(ptr, new);
> > > +		iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		/* Existing & new DTEs are valid. */
> > > +		if (!FIELD_GET(DTE_FLAG_GV, ptr->data[0])) {
> > > +			/* Existing DTE has no guest page table. */
> > > +			write_upper(ptr, new);
> > > +			write_lower(ptr, new);
> > > +			iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +		} else if (!FIELD_GET(DTE_FLAG_GV, new->data[0])) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Existing DTE has guest page table,
> > > +			 * new DTE has no guest page table,
> > > +			 */
> > > +			write_lower(ptr, new);
> > > +			write_upper(ptr, new);
> > > +			iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Existing DTE has guest page table,
> > > +			 * new DTE has guest page table.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			struct dev_table_entry clear = {};
> > > +
> > > +			/* First disable DTE */
> > > +			write_lower(ptr, &clear);
> > > +			iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +
> > > +			/* Then update DTE */
> > > +			write_upper(ptr, new);
> > > +			write_lower(ptr, new);
> > > +			iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
> > > +		}
> > 
> > There is one branch missing where GV is valid in both and the [1]
> > doesn't change. Ie atomic replace of a GCR3 table.
> 
> Not sure if I follow this.

Something like:

if (FIELD_GET(DTE_FLAG_GV, ptr->data[0]) &&
    FIELD_GET(DTE_FLAG_GV, new->data[0]) &&
    (ptr->data[2] & DTE_INTR_MASK) == (new->data[2] & DTE_INTR_MASK)) {
    	/* GCR3 table has changed, but the same number of levels, no need to disable DTE */
	write_lower(ptr, new);
	iommu_flush_sync_dte(iommu, dev_data->devid);
}

Jason