Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Refactor write_ctx_desc

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:15:50PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 9:50 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > -     ret = arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, cd);
> > > -     if (ret)
> > > +     ret = arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, cd);
> > > +     if (ret) {
> > > +             arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc_devices(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, NULL);
> >
> > Why is it safe to drop the lock between these two calls?
> 
> Hmmm this is a tricky question.
> Tracing through the SVA flow, it seems like there's a scenario where
> multiple masters (with the same upstream SMMU device) can be attached
> to the same primary/non-sva domain, in which case calling
> iommu_attach_device_pasid on one device will write the CD entry for
> both masters. This is still the case even with this patch series, and
> changing this behavior will be the subject of a separate follow-up.
> This is weird, especially since the second master need not even have
> the sva_enabled bit set. This also means that the list of attached
> masters can indeed change between these two calls if that second
> master (not the one used on the iommu_attach_device_pasid call leading
> to this code) is detached/attached at the same time. It's hard for me
> to reason about whether this is safe or not, since this is already
> weird behavior...

I really think the writing of the context descriptors should look atomic;
dropping the lock half way through a failed update and then coming back
to NULL them out definitely isn't correct. So I think you've probably pushed
the locking too far down the stack.

Will

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