netdev - Re: Re: [RFC v2 09/13] vduse: Add support for processing vhost iotlb message

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Dec 2020 18:12:40 +0800
From:   Yongji Xie <xieyongji@...edance.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, sgarzare@...hat.com,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        axboe@...nel.dk, bcrl@...ck.org, corbet@....net,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v2 09/13] vduse: Add support for processing vhost iotlb message

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/12/30 下午3:09, Yongji Xie wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 2:11 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2020/12/29 下午6:26, Yongji Xie wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:43 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/12/28 下午4:14, Yongji Xie wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I see. So all the above two questions are because VHOST_IOTLB_INVALIDATE
> >>>>>>>> is expected to be synchronous. This need to be solved by tweaking the
> >>>>>>>> current VDUSE API or we can re-visit to go with descriptors relaying
> >>>>>>>> first.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually all vdpa related operations are synchronous in current
> >>>>>>> implementation. The ops.set_map/dma_map/dma_unmap should not return
> >>>>>>> until the VDUSE_UPDATE_IOTLB/VDUSE_INVALIDATE_IOTLB message is replied
> >>>>>>> by userspace. Could it solve this problem?
> >>>>>>     I was thinking whether or not we need to generate IOTLB_INVALIDATE
> >>>>>> message to VDUSE during dma_unmap (vduse_dev_unmap_page).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we don't, we're probably fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It seems not feasible. This message will be also used in the
> >>>>> virtio-vdpa case to notify userspace to unmap some pages during
> >>>>> consistent dma unmapping. Maybe we can document it to make sure the
> >>>>> users can handle the message correctly.
> >>>> Just to make sure I understand your point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you mean you plan to notify the unmap of 1) streaming DMA or 2)
> >>>> coherent DMA?
> >>>>
> >>>> For 1) you probably need a workqueue to do that since dma unmap can
> >>>> be done in irq or bh context. And if usrspace does't do the unmap, it
> >>>> can still access the bounce buffer (if you don't zap pte)?
> >>>>
> >>> I plan to do it in the coherent DMA case.
> >>
> >> Any reason for treating coherent DMA differently?
> >>
> > Now the memory of the bounce buffer is allocated page by page in the
> > page fault handler. So it can't be used in coherent DMA mapping case
> > which needs some memory with contiguous virtual addresses. I can use
> > vmalloc() to do allocation for the bounce buffer instead. But it might
> > cause some memory waste. Any suggestion?
>
>
> I may miss something. But I don't see a relationship between the
> IOTLB_UNMAP and vmalloc().
>

In the vmalloc() case, the coherent DMA page will be taken from the
memory allocated by vmalloc(). So IOTLB_UNMAP is not needed anymore
during coherent DMA unmapping because those vmalloc'ed memory which
has been mapped into userspace address space during initialization can
be reused. And userspace should not unmap the region until we destroy
the device.

>
> >
> >>> It's true that userspace can
> >>> access the dma buffer if userspace doesn't do the unmap. But the dma
> >>> pages would not be freed and reused unless user space called munmap()
> >>> for them.
> >>
> >> I wonder whether or not we could recycle IOVA in this case to avoid the
> >> IOTLB_UMAP message.
> >>
> > We can achieve that if we use vmalloc() to do allocation for the
> > bounce buffer which can be used in coherent DMA mapping case. But
> > looks like we still have no way to avoid the IOTLB_UMAP message in
> > vhost-vdpa case.
>
>
> I think that's fine. For virtio-vdpa, from VDUSE userspace perspective,
> it works like a driver that is using SWIOTLB in this case.
>

OK, will do it in v3.

Thanks,
Yongji