From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation APIs Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1614463286-97618-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1614463286-97618-6-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20210318172234.3e8c34f7@jacob-builder> <20210319124645.GP2356281@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DAYPn6BONqpHEbUgtaq686MIszfpE7Ws+kMTTaVpKdw=; b=IOd4Cob2v4qwcVrJJUnC6ZJVxIF2WBZVUhabq0Mv+BS0jxbHyUnYBlGulXszdU4mh5 JXzpsK3jKuoU/S5b9nKYFRf5F0sT8Ih0u+BBZ97AbRXwrnLfybJJGTeRgA19XHDBH/6A EIDPKhijEx951g3qBOvaySlcB+XCF59BiLWj7FAAa+dfvbhhKPrkAChUBce435eNngqn R+HJqOzXYp0v+9UH9mxi/ExOXRx5qD4c7l8r5Po2L8As98VwmoUM9fKmxEPZfPe/fd7Q UbCXx9Q/ZuSWaZ1C6p/tiwNnPCGMuVJaU5azJ48KpQKEX3nEV8O7VaIWzhCFinZ0/Xoq OHoQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210319124645.GP2356281-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Sender: "iommu" To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , Alex Williamson , Raj Ashok , Jonathan Corbet , Jean-Philippe Brucker , LKML , Dave Jiang , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wu Hao , David Woodhouse On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:46:45AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:58:41AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > Although there is no use for it at the moment (only two upstream users and > > it looks like amdkfd always uses current too), I quite like the > > client-server model where the privileged process does bind() and programs > > the hardware queue on behalf of the client process. > > This creates a lot complexity, how do does process A get a secure > reference to B? How does it access the memory in B to setup the HW? mm_access() for example, and passing addresses via IPC > Why do we need separation anyhow? SVM devices are supposed to be > secure or they shouldn't do SVM. Right Thanks, Jean