linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 11/13] vduse: add vq group asid support

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: <20260119043804-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 04:39:17 -0500
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@...hat.com>,
	Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoqueli@...hat.com>, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	Yongji Xie <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
	Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 11/13] vduse: add vq group asid support

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 04:34:11PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 4:10 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> <eperezma@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 8:17 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 10:05 PM Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add support for assigning Address Space Identifiers (ASIDs) to each VQ
> > > > group.  This enables mapping each group into a distinct memory space.
> > > >
> > > > The vq group to ASID association is protected by a rwlock now.  But the
> > > > mutex domain_lock keeps protecting the domains of all ASIDs, as some
> > > > operations like the one related with the bounce buffer size still
> > > > requires to lock all the ASIDs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Future improvements can include performance optimizations on top like
> > > > ore to RCU or thread synchronized atomics, or hardening by tracking ASID
> > > > or ASID hashes on unused bits of the DMA address.
> > > >
> > > > Tested virtio_vdpa by adding manually two threads in vduse_set_status:
> > > > one of them modifies the vq group 0 ASID and the other one map and unmap
> > > > memory continuously.  After a while, the two threads stop and the usual
> > > > work continues.  Test with version 0, version 1 with the old ioctl, and
> > > > version 1 with the new ioctl.
> > > >
> > > > Tested with vhost_vdpa by migrating a VM while ping on OVS+VDUSE.  A few
> > > > workaround were needed in some parts:
> > > > * Do not enable CVQ before data vqs in QEMU, as VDUSE does not forward
> > > >   the enable message to the userland device.  This will be solved in the
> > > >   future.
> > > > * Share the suspended state between all vhost devices in QEMU:
> > > >   https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2025-11/msg02947.html
> > > > * Implement a fake VDUSE suspend vdpa operation callback that always
> > > >   returns true in the kernel.  DPDK suspend the device at the first
> > > >   GET_VRING_BASE.
> > > > * Remove the CVQ blocker in ASID.
> > > >
> > > > The driver vhost_vdpa was also tested with version 0, version 1 with the
> > > > old ioctl, version 1 with the new ioctl but only one ASID, and version 1
> > > > with many ASID.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Looks good overall, but I spot a small issue:
> > >
> > > int vduse_domain_add_user_bounce_pages(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> > >                                        struct page **pages, int count)
> > > {
> > >         struct vduse_bounce_map *map, *head_map;
> > >         ...
> > >
> > >         /* Now we don't support partial mapping */
> > >         if (count != (domain->bounce_size >> PAGE_SHIFT))
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Here we still use domain->bounce_size even if we support multiple as,
> > > this conflicts with the case without userspace memory.
> > >
> >
> > I don't follow you. My understanding from the previous discussion is
> > that the bounce size is distributed evenly per AS. Should we just have
> > a global bounce buffer size and protect that the amount of added
> > memory of all domains is less than that bounce size?
> 
> I meant we require bounce_size / nas to be the size of the bounce
> buffer size of each AS.
> 
> But for userspace registered memory, it requires bounce_size per AS.
> 
> Thanks

I don't really understand what you are saying here, either.
Could you explain what your suggestion is?


> >