linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu instead of s2

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Z8idOr67A0EG1/PN@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 10:51:38 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu
 instead of s2_parent

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:31:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:23:36AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:54:52PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:03:59PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration.
> > > > Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU
> > > > instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the
> > > > s2_cfg and vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support
> > > > stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in
> > > > the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.
> > > 
> > > I was planning to also fix the S2 to be able to attach to multiple
> > > IOMMU instances at the same time as getting VMID to the viommu.. It
> > > doesn't quite make sense to me that viommu would allow multi-attach
> > > but the normal cases wouldn't. Did you find a shortcut?
> > 
> > Hmm, not quite following the question. You mean vIOMMU attaching to
> > multiple S2 domains?
> 
> I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple
> instances.

Oh, I haven't thought about a !nest_parent S2 case.

A nest_parent case will not allow devices to attach the S2 but
always to a proxy nested S1 as we discussed previously. So, I
think the implementation could be very different?

Thanks
Nicolin