linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB flush

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: <20250710155319.GK1613633@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:53:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"Tested-by : Yi Lai" <yi1.lai@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	security@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB
 flush

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > @@ -132,8 +136,15 @@ struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto out_free_domain;
> >  	domain->users = 1;
> > -	list_add(&domain->next, &mm->iommu_mm->sva_domains);
> >  
> > +	if (list_empty(&iommu_mm->sva_domains)) {
> > +		scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &iommu_mms_lock) {
> > +			if (list_empty(&iommu_sva_mms))
> > +				static_branch_enable(&iommu_sva_present);
> > +			list_add(&iommu_mm->mm_list_elm, &iommu_sva_mms);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	list_add(&domain->next, &iommu_mm->sva_domains);
> >  out:
> >  	refcount_set(&handle->users, 1);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock);
> > @@ -175,6 +186,15 @@ void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle)
> >  		list_del(&domain->next);
> >  		iommu_domain_free(domain);
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	if (list_empty(&iommu_mm->sva_domains)) {
> > +		scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &iommu_mms_lock) {
> > +			list_del(&iommu_mm->mm_list_elm);
> > +			if (list_empty(&iommu_sva_mms))
> > +				static_branch_disable(&iommu_sva_present);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock);
> >  	kfree(handle);
> >  }
> 
> This seems an odd coding style choice; why the extra unneeded
> indentation? That is, what's wrong with:
> 
> 	if (list_empty()) {
> 		guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&iommu_mms_lock);
> 		list_del();
> 		if (list_empty()
> 			static_branch_disable();
> 	}

Well, for one, you can't do static_branch_{en,dis}able() from atomic
context...

Was this ever tested?