RE: [PATCH v1 7/8] vfio/type1: Add VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE

Tian, Kevin
2020-04-03T06:39:32Z

> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 4:24 AM
>
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:32:04 -0700
> "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > For VFIO IOMMUs with the type VFIO_TYPE1_NESTING_IOMMU, guest
> "owns" the
> > first-level/stage-1 translation structures, the host IOMMU driver has no
> > knowledge of first-level/stage-1 structure cache updates unless the guest
> > invalidation requests are trapped and propagated to the host.
> >
> > This patch adds a new IOCTL VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE to
> propagate guest
> > first-level/stage-1 IOMMU cache invalidations to host to ensure IOMMU
> cache
> > correctness.
> >
> > With this patch, vSVA (Virtual Shared Virtual Addressing) can be used safely
> > as the host IOMMU iotlb correctness are ensured.
> >
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 49
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index a877747..937ec3f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -2423,6 +2423,15 @@ static long
> vfio_iommu_type1_unbind_gpasid(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vfio_cache_inv_fn(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct domain_capsule *dc = (struct domain_capsule *)data;
> > + struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info *cache_inv_info =
> > + (struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info *) dc->data;
> > +
> > + return iommu_cache_invalidate(dc->domain, dev, cache_inv_info);
> > +}
> > +
> > static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > {
> > @@ -2629,6 +2638,46 @@ static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void
> *iommu_data,
> > }
> > kfree(gbind_data);
> > return ret;
> > + } else if (cmd == VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE) {
> > + struct vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate cache_inv;
> > + u32 version;
> > + int info_size;
> > + void *cache_info;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + minsz = offsetofend(struct
> vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate,
> > + flags);
>
> This breaks backward compatibility as soon as struct
> iommu_cache_invalidate_info changes size by its defined versioning
> scheme. ie. a field gets added, the version is bumped, all existing
> userspace breaks. Our minsz is offsetofend to the version field,
> interpret the version to size, then reevaluate argsz.

btw the version scheme is challenged by Christoph Hellwig. After
some discussions, we need your guidance how to move forward.
Jacob summarized available options below:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/2/876

>
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(&cache_inv, (void __user *)arg, minsz))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (cache_inv.argsz < minsz || cache_inv.flags)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* Get the version of struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info */
> > + if (copy_from_user(&version,
> > + (void __user *) (arg + minsz), sizeof(version)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + info_size = iommu_uapi_get_data_size(
> > + IOMMU_UAPI_CACHE_INVAL,
> version);
> > +
> > + cache_info = kzalloc(info_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!cache_info)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(cache_info,
> > + (void __user *) (arg + minsz), info_size)) {
> > + kfree(cache_info);
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> > + ret = vfio_iommu_for_each_dev(iommu, vfio_cache_inv_fn,
> > + cache_info);
>
> How does a user respond when their cache invalidate fails? Isn't this
> also another case where our for_each_dev can fail at an arbitrary point
> leaving us with no idea whether each device even had the opportunity to
> perform the invalidation request. I don't see how we have any chance
> to maintain coherency after this faults.

Then can we make it simple to support singleton group only?

>
> > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > + kfree(cache_info);
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > return -ENOTTY;
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > index 2235bc6..62ca791 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -899,6 +899,28 @@ struct vfio_iommu_type1_bind {
> > */
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_BIND _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 23)
> >
> > +/**
> > + * VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE - _IOW(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 24,
> > + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate)
> > + *
> > + * Propagate guest IOMMU cache invalidation to the host. The cache
> > + * invalidation information is conveyed by @cache_info, the content
> > + * format would be structures defined in uapi/linux/iommu.h. User
> > + * should be aware of that the struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info
> > + * has a @version field, vfio needs to parse this field before getting
> > + * data from userspace.
> > + *
> > + * Availability of this IOCTL is after VFIO_SET_IOMMU.
>
> Is this a necessary qualifier? A user can try to call this ioctl at
> any point, it only makes sense in certain configurations, but it should
> always "do the right thing" relative to the container iommu config.
>
> Also, I don't see anything in these last few patches testing the
> operating IOMMU model, what happens when a user calls them when not
> using the nesting IOMMU?
>
> Is this ioctl and the previous BIND ioctl only valid when configured
> for the nesting IOMMU type?

I think so. We should add the nesting check in those new ioctls.

>
> > + *
> > + * returns: 0 on success, -errno on failure.
> > + */
> > +struct vfio_iommu_type1_cache_invalidate {
> > + __u32 argsz;
> > + __u32 flags;
> > + struct iommu_cache_invalidate_info cache_info;
> > +};
> > +#define VFIO_IOMMU_CACHE_INVALIDATE _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE
> + 24)
>
> The future extension capabilities of this ioctl worry me, I wonder if
> we should do another data[] with flag defining that data as CACHE_INFO.

Can you elaborate? Does it mean with this way we don't rely on iommu
driver to provide version_to_size conversion and instead we just pass
data[] to iommu driver for further audit?

>
> > +
> > /* -------- Additional API for SPAPR TCE (Server POWERPC) IOMMU --------
> */
> >
> > /*

Thanks
Kevin