Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] vfio/iommu_type1: Remove the domain->ops comparison

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
	"jordan@cosmicpenguin.net" <jordan@cosmicpenguin.net>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"alyssa@rosenzweig.io" <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	"jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	"saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org"
	<saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"zhang.lyra@gmail.com" <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"yangyingliang@huawei.com" <yangyingliang@huawei.com>,
	"orsonzhai@gmail.com" <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
	"gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"sven@svenpeter.dev" <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
	"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"john.garry@huawei.com" <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	"christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr" <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
	"thunder.leizhen@huawei.com" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
	"matthias.bgg@gmail.com" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"yong.wu@mediatek.com" <yong.wu@mediatek.com>,
	"isaacm@codeaurora.org" <isaacm@codeaurora.org>,
	"chenxiang66@hisilicon.com" <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>,
	"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	"marcan@marcan.st" <marcan@marcan.st>,
	"alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"robdclark@gmail.com" <robdclark@gmail.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"baolin.wang7@gmail.com" <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
	"linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	"dwmw2@infradead.org" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] vfio/iommu_type1: Remove the domain->ops comparison
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:46:09 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220624184609.GX4147@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c9dee5e3-4525-b9bf-3775-30995d59af9e@arm.com>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 07:31:47PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:

> > > Oh, physical platforms with mixed IOMMUs definitely exist already. The main
> > > point is that while bus_set_iommu still exists, the core code effectively
> > > *does* prevent multiple drivers from registering - even in emulated cases
> > > like the example above, virtio-iommu and VT-d would both try to
> > > bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type), and one of them will lose. The aspect which
> > > might warrant clarification is that there's no combination of supported
> > > drivers which claim non-overlapping buses *and* could appear in the same
> > > system - even if you tried to contrive something by emulating, say, VT-d
> > > (PCI) alongside rockchip-iommu (platform), you could still only describe one
> > > or the other due to ACPI vs. Devicetree.
> > 
> > Right, and that is still something we need to protect against with
> > this ops check. VFIO is not checking that the bus's are the same
> > before attempting to re-use a domain.
> > 
> > So it is actually functional and does protect against systems with
> > multiple iommu drivers on different busses.
> 
> But as above, which systems *are* those? 

IDK it seems wrong that the system today will allow different buses to
have different IOMMU drivers and not provide a trivial protection
check.

> FWIW my iommu/bus dev branch has got as far as the final bus ops removal and
> allowing multiple driver registrations, and before it allows that, it does
> now have the common attach check that I sketched out in the previous
> discussion of this.

If you want to put the check in your series that seems fine too, as
long as we get it in the end.

> It's probably also noteworthy that domain->ops is no longer the same
> domain->ops that this code was written to check, and may now be different
> between domains from the same driver.

Yes, the vfio check is not good anymore.

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel