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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Z8iqCpGo1Kx4TAvQ@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:46:18 -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 03:29:50PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:51:38AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> It could, and that is what you show here
> 
> But also, it could be the same implementation.

OK.

Obviously I underestimated this part of work.

Implementation aside, this at lease needs some assessment of any
invalidation impact. I should do some extra tracing.

Thanks
Nicolin