Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iommu/sva: Tighten SVA bind API with explicit flags

Jacob Pan
2021-05-11T18:03:36Z

Hi Jason,

On Tue, 11 May 2021 13:35:21 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:14:52AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
>
> > > Honestly, I'm not convinced we should have "kernel SVA" at all.. Why
> > > does IDXD use normal DMA on the RID for kernel controlled accesses?
> >
> > Using SVA simplifies the work submission, there is no need to do
> > map/unmap. Just bind PASID with init_mm, then submit work directly
> > either with ENQCMDS (supervisor version of ENQCMD) to a shared
> > workqueue or put the supervisor PASID in the descriptor for dedicated
> > workqueue.
>
> That is not OK, protable drivers in Linux have to sue dma map/unmap
> calls to manage cache coherence. PASID does not opt out of any of
> that.
>
Let me try to break down your concerns:
1. portability - driver uses DMA APIs can function w/ and w/o IOMMU. is
that your concern? But PASID is intrinsically tied with IOMMU and if
the drivers are using a generic sva-lib API, why they are not portable?
SVA by its definition is to avoid map/unmap every time.

2. cache coherence - as you suggested if we name the flag "direct_map",
there is no mapping change, then there is no need for mmu_notifier like tlb
flush calls, right? it is caller's responsibility to make sure vmalloc are
not used.

> I dislike this whole idea a lot. A single driver should not opt itself
> out of IOMMU based security "just because"
>
Perhaps I missed your point here. This is NOT a single driver, privileged
access is a PCIe spec defined feature. We are using IOMMU sva-lib APIs, not
sure why it is by-passing.

Perhaps we should add check for struct pci_dev->untrusted && rciep to
address security?

> Jason

Thanks,

Jacob