linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommufd: modify iommufd_fault_iopf

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: <CABQgh9E=AKgN=QqewH+HPyHEk8bYzABnEuj3UiWwpHMYUNFrhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 04:40:15 +0000
From: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	jean-philippe <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, shamiali2008@...il.com, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommufd: modify iommufd_fault_iopf_enable limitation

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 01:52, Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/24 21:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:47:09AM +0000, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 11:32, Zhangfei Gao<zhangfei.gao@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>> iommufd_fault_iopf_enable has limitation to PRI on PCI/SRIOV VFs
> >>> because the PRI might be a shared resource and current iommu
> >>> subsystem is not ready to support enabling/disabling PRI on a VF
> >>> without any impact on others.
> >>>
> >>> However, we have devices that appear as PCI but are actually on the
> >>> AMBA bus. These fake PCI devices have PASID capability, support
> >>> stall as well as SRIOV, so remove the limitation for these devices.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao<zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   drivers/iommu/iommufd/fault.c | 9 +++++++--
> >>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/fault.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/fault.c
> >>> index bca956d496bd..8b3e34250dae 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/fault.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/fault.c
> >>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >>>   #include <linux/module.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/pci.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/pci-ats.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/poll.h>
> >>>   #include <uapi/linux/iommufd.h>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -27,8 +28,12 @@ static int iommufd_fault_iopf_enable(struct iommufd_device *idev)
> >>>           * resource between PF and VFs. There is no coordination for this
> >>>           * shared capability. This waits for a vPRI reset to recover.
> >>>           */
> >>> -       if (dev_is_pci(dev) && to_pci_dev(dev)->is_virtfn)
> >>> -               return -EINVAL;
> >>> +       if (dev_is_pci(dev)) {
> >>> +               struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> >>> +
> >>> +               if (pdev->is_virtfn && pci_pri_supported(pdev))
> >>> +                       return -EINVAL;
> >>> +       }
> >>>
> >>>          mutex_lock(&idev->iopf_lock);
> >>>          /* Device iopf has already been on. */
> >>>
> >> Hi, Jason
> >>
> >> Would you mind also taking a look at this.
> > Lu? Are you OK with this?
>
> This change looks good to me. But the s-o-b chain would make more sense
> if we can make it like this,
>
> Co-developed-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao<zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
>
> With this addressed,
>
> Reviewed-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks Baolu,
Have fixed it.

Thanks