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: <BN9PR11MB5276185135D3917DD04E72C68C4BA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 02:49:35 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, "Will
 Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Jann Horn
	<jannh@...gle.com>, Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>, Alistair Popple
	<apopple@...dia.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Uladzislau Rezki
	<urezki@...il.com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, "Andy
 Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>, "Lai, Yi1" <yi1.lai@...el.com>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "security@...nel.org"
	<security@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "stable@...r.kernel.org"
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB
 flush

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 9:23 PM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 05:53:16AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> >  * I'm not sure if the IOMMU will even create an IOTLB entry for
> >    a supervisor-permission mapping while doing a user-permission walk.

Early VT-d platforms may cache faulted translation. But they are
pretty old and way before SVA was introduced in spec.

> 
> It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, it doesn't change the
> argument that we don't have to invalidate on PTEs being changed.
> 

but yes, that fact doesn't matter.