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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fc5b7217-49b5-4ca0-b4f7-0eab5000a2e4@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:15:53 +0700
From: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.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 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.

> And maybe this will need more branches later for the viommu stuff?

I will take care of this later once we introduce the change for vIOMMU 
stuff.

> But otherwise yes this captures what is needed just fine.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> 
>> @@ -1256,6 +1342,16 @@ static int iommu_flush_dte(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u16 devid)
>> +int iommu_flush_sync_dte(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u16 devid)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = iommu_flush_dte(iommu, devid);
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		iommu_completion_wait(iommu);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> Maybe this doesn't need to return an error since we can't handle
> failure to flush DTE tables..

Okey.

Thanks,
Suravee