linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/19] iommufd/viommu: Add vdev

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: <ZwDMb3F8/cCFhwcQ@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 22:19:43 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <kevin.tian@...el.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
	<dwmw2@...radead.org>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	<eric.auger@...hat.com>, <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, <mdf@...nel.org>,
	<mshavit@...gle.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	<smostafa@...gle.com>, <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/19] iommufd/viommu: Add vdev_id helpers for IOMMU
 drivers

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:17:22PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:11:03PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:14:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:59:47AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > Driver can call the iommufd_viommu_find_device() to find a device pointer
> > > > > using its per-viommu virtual ID. The returned device must be protected by
> > > > > the pair of iommufd_viommu_lock/unlock_vdev_id() function.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Put these three functions into a new viommu_api file, to build it with the
> > > > > IOMMUFD_DRIVER config.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/Makefile     |  2 +-
> > > > >  drivers/iommu/iommufd/viommu_api.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  include/linux/iommufd.h            | 16 ++++++++++++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/iommu/iommufd/viommu_api.c
> > > > 
> > > > I still think this is better to just share the struct content with the
> > > > driver, eventually we want to do this anyhow as the driver will
> > > > want to use container_of() techniques to reach its private data.
> > > 
> > > In my mind, exposing everything to the driver is something that
> > > we have to (for driver-managed structures) v.s. we want to...
> > > Even in that case, a driver actually only need to know the size
> > > of the core structure, without touching what's inside(?).
> > > 
> > > I am a bit worried that drivers would abuse the content in the
> > > core-level structure.. Providing a set of API would encourage
> > > them to keep the core structure intact, hopefully..
> > 
> > This is always a tension in the kernel. If the core apis can be nice
> > and tidy then it is a reasonable direction
> > 
> > But here I think we've cross some threshold where the APIs are
> > complex, want to be inlined and really we just want to expose data not
> > APIs to drivers.
> 
> OK. I'll think of a rework. And might need another justification
> for a DEFAULT type of vIOMMU object to fit in.

I tried exposing the struct iommufd_viommu to drivers, and was
able to drop a couple of helpers, except these two:

struct device *vdev_to_dev(struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev)
{
	return vdev ? vdev->idev->dev : NULL;
} // Without it, we need to expose struct iommufd_device.

struct iommu_domain *
iommufd_viommu_to_parent_domain(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu)
{
	if (!viommu || !viommu->hwpt)
		return NULL;
	return viommu->hwpt->common.domain;
} // Without it, we need to expose struct iommufd_hwpt_page.

Thanks
Nicolin