| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <aLvt7WBgvVsAD7wC@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 01:16:45 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<jean-philippe@...aro.org>, <miko.lenczewski@....com>, <balbirs@...dia.com>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <smostafa@...gle.com>, <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
<praan@...gle.com>, <zhangzekun11@...wei.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfcv1 4/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Introduce a per-domain
arm_smmu_invs array
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 05:00:02PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 06:25:35PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > +struct arm_smmu_invs *arm_smmu_invs_add(struct arm_smmu_invs *old_invs,
> > + struct arm_smmu_invs *add_invs)
> > +{
>
> It turns out it is fairly easy and cheap to sort add_invs by sorting
> the ids during probe:
I have integrated this and also renamed these three helpers:
+struct arm_smmu_invs *arm_smmu_invs_merge(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
+ struct arm_smmu_invs *to_merge);
+size_t arm_smmu_invs_unref(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
+ struct arm_smmu_invs *to_unref);
+struct arm_smmu_invs *arm_smmu_invs_purge(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
+ size_t num_dels);
Thanks!
Nicolin
> @@ -3983,6 +3989,14 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_sid_strtab(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, u32 sid)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int arm_smmu_ids_cmp(const void *_l, const void *_r)
> +{
> + const typeof_member(struct iommu_fwspec, ids[0]) *l = _l;
> + const typeof_member(struct iommu_fwspec, ids[0]) *r = _r;
> +
> + return cmp_int(*l, *r);
> +}
> +
> static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> {
> @@ -4011,6 +4025,13 @@ static int arm_smmu_insert_master(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> return PTR_ERR(master->invs);
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Put the ids into order so that arm_smmu_build_invs() can trivially
> + * generate sorted lists.
> + */
> + sort_nonatomic(fwspec->ids, fwspec->num_ids, sizeof(fwspec->ids[0]),
> + arm_smmu_ids_cmp, NULL);
> +
> mutex_lock(&smmu->streams_mutex);
> for (i = 0; i < fwspec->num_ids; i++) {
> struct arm_smmu_stream *new_stream = &master->streams[i];
>
> Then arm_smmu_build_invs() trivially makes sorted lists.
>
> So if old_invs and add_invs are both sorted list we can use variations
> on a merge algorithm for sorted lists which is both simpler to
> understand and runs faster:
>
> /*
> * Compare used for merging two sorted lists. Merge compare of two sorted list
> * items. If one side is past the end of the list then return the other side to
> * let it run out the iteration.
> */
> static inline int arm_smmu_invs_merge_cmp(const struct arm_smmu_invs *lhs,
> size_t lhs_idx,
> const struct arm_smmu_invs *rhs,
> size_t rhs_idx)
> {
> if (lhs_idx != lhs->num_invs && rhs_idx != rhs->num_invs)
> return arm_smmu_invs_cmp(&lhs->inv[lhs_idx],
> &rhs->inv[rhs_idx]);
> if (lhs_idx != lhs->num_invs)
> return -1;
> return 1;
> }
>
> struct arm_smmu_invs *arm_smmu_invs_add(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
> struct arm_smmu_invs *add_invs)
> {
> struct arm_smmu_invs *new_invs;
> struct arm_smmu_inv *new;
> size_t to_add = 0;
> size_t to_del = 0;
> size_t i, j;
>
> for (i = 0, j = 0; i != invs->num_invs || j != add_invs->num_invs;) {
> int cmp = arm_smmu_invs_merge_cmp(invs, i, add_invs, j);
>
> if (cmp < 0) {
> /* not found in add_invs, leave alone */
> if (refcount_read(&invs->inv[i].users))
> i++;
> else
> to_del++;
> } else if (cmp == 0) {
> /* same item */
> i++;
> j++;
> } else {
> /* unique to add_invs */
> to_add++;
> j++;
> }
> }
>
> new_invs = arm_smmu_invs_alloc(invs->num_invs + to_add - to_del);
> if (IS_ERR(new_invs))
> return new_invs;
>
> new = new_invs->inv;
> for (i = 0, j = 0; i != invs->num_invs || j != add_invs->num_invs;) {
> int cmp = arm_smmu_invs_merge_cmp(invs, i, add_invs, j);
>
> if (cmp <= 0 && !refcount_read(&invs->inv[i].users)) {
> i++;
> continue;
> }
>
> if (cmp < 0) {
> *new = invs->inv[i];
> i++;
> } else if (cmp == 0) {
> *new = invs->inv[i];
> refcount_inc(&new->users);
> i++;
> j++;
> } else {
> *new = add_invs->inv[j];
> refcount_set(&new->users, 1);
> j++;
> }
> if (arm_smmu_inv_is_ats(new))
> new_invs->has_ats = true;
> new++;
> }
>
> WARN_ON(new != new_invs->inv + new_invs->num_invs);
>
> /*
> * A sorted array allows batching invalidations together for fewer SYNCs.
> * Also, ATS must follow the ASID/VMID invalidation SYNC.
> */
> sort_nonatomic(new_invs->inv, new_invs->num_invs,
> sizeof(add_invs->inv[0]), arm_smmu_invs_cmp, NULL);
> return new_invs;
> }
>
> size_t arm_smmu_invs_dec(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
> struct arm_smmu_invs *dec_invs)
> {
> size_t to_del = 0;
> size_t i, j;
>
> for (i = 0, j = 0; i != invs->num_invs || j != dec_invs->num_invs;) {
> int cmp = arm_smmu_invs_merge_cmp(invs, i, dec_invs, j);
>
> if (cmp < 0) {
> /* not found in dec_invs, leave alone */
> i++;
> } else if (cmp == 0) {
> /* same item */
> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&invs->inv[i].users)) {
> dec_invs->inv[j].todel = true;
> to_del++;
> }
> i++;
> j++;
> } else {
> /* item in dec_invs is not in invs? */
> WARN_ON(true);
> j++;
> }
> }
> return to_del;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists