linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 13/15] iommufd: Persist iommu domains for live update

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: <CAAywjhRGrGjZK3jQptieVWmdzvjfNtTYrp2ChTZJSmFyrBaRqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:02:31 -0700
From: Samiullah Khawaja <skhawaja@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, 
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@...gle.com>, 
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>, 
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Adithya Jayachandran <ajayachandra@...dia.com>, 
	Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, William Tu <witu@...dia.com>, 
	Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, dmatlack@...gle.com, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, 
	praan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/15] iommufd: Persist iommu domains for live update

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:59 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 09:07:48AM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 12:00 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 07:06:21PM +0000, Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
> > > > +static int iommufd_save_ioas(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx,
> > > > +                          struct iommufd_lu *iommufd_lu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     struct iommufd_hwpt_paging *hwpt_paging;
> > > > +     struct iommufd_ioas *ioas = NULL;
> > > > +     struct iommufd_object *obj;
> > > > +     unsigned long index;
> > > > +     int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > +     /* Iterate each ioas. */
> > > > +     xa_for_each(&ictx->objects, index, obj) {
> > > > +             if (obj->type != IOMMUFD_OBJ_IOAS)
> > > > +                     continue;
> > >
> > > Wrong locking
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +             ioas = (struct iommufd_ioas *)obj;
> > > > +             mutex_lock(&ioas->mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > +             /*
> > > > +              * TODO: Iterate over each device of this iommufd and only save
> > > > +              * hwpt/domain if the device is persisted.
> > > > +              */
> > > > +             list_for_each_entry(hwpt_paging, &ioas->hwpt_list, hwpt_item) {
> > > > +                     if (!hwpt_paging->common.domain)
> > > > +                             continue;
> > >
> > > I don't think this should be automatic. The user should directly
> > > serialize/unserialize HWPTs by ID.
> >
> > Why not?  Live Updated uAPI is handled through FDs, and both iommufd
> > and vfiofd have to be preserved; I assume we can automatically
> > determine the hwpt to be preserved through dependencies. Why would we
> > delegate this to the user?
>
> There are HWPTs outside the IOAS so it is inconsisent.

This makes sense. But if I understand correctly a HWPT should be
associated one way or another to a preserved device or IOAS. Also the
nested ones will have parent HWPT. Can we not look at the dependencies
here and find the HWPTs that need to preserved.
>
> We are not going to reconstruct the IOAS.
>
> The IDR ids of the HWPT may not be available on restore (we cannot
> make this ABI), so without userspace expressly labeling them and
> recovering the new IDR ids it doesn't work.
>
> Finally we expect to discard the preserved HWPTs and replace them we
> rebuilt ones at least as a first step. Userspace needs to sequence all
> of this..

But if we discard the old HWPTs and replace them with the new ones, we
shouldn't need labeling of the old HWPTs? We would definitely need to
sequence the replacement and discard of the old ones, but that can
also be inferred through the dependencies between the new HWPTs?
>
> Jason