Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu/uapi: Add helper function for size lookup

Jacob Pan
2020-02-03T22:35:47Z

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 14:12:36 -0700
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:41:43 -0800
> Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 11:27:08 -0700
> > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:51:25 -0800
> > > Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > Sorry I missed this part in the previous reply. Comments below.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:19:51 -0700
> > > > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also, is the 12-bytes of padding in struct
> > > > > iommu_gpasid_bind_data excessive with this new versioning
> > > > > scheme? Per rule #2 I'm not sure if we're allowed to
> > > > > repurpose those padding bytes,
> > > > We can still use the padding bytes as long as there is a new
> > > > flag bit to indicate the validity of the new filed within the
> > > > padding. I should have made it clear in rule #2 when mentioning
> > > > the flags bits. Should define what extension constitutes.
> > > > How about this?
> > > > "
> > > > * 2. Data structures are open to extension but closed to
> > > > modification.
> > > > * Extension should leverage the padding bytes first where a
> > > > new
> > > > * flag bit is required to indicate the validity of each new
> > > > member.
> > > > * The above rule for padding bytes also applies to adding
> > > > new union
> > > > * members.
> > > > * After padding bytes are exhausted, new fields must be
> > > > added at the
> > > > * end of each data structure with 64bit alignment. Flag bits
> > > > can be
> > > > * added without size change but existing ones cannot be
> > > > altered. *
> > > > "
> > > > So if we add new field by doing re-purpose of padding bytes,
> > > > size lookup result will remain the same. New code would
> > > > recognize the new flag, old code stays the same.
> > > >
> > > > VFIO layer checks for UAPI compatibility and size to copy,
> > > > version sanity check and flag usage are done in the IOMMU code.
> > > >
> > > > > but if we add
> > > > > fields to the end of the structure as the scheme suggests,
> > > > > we're stuck with not being able to expand the union for new
> > > > > fields.
> > > > Good point, it does sound contradictory. I hope the rewritten
> > > > rule #2 address that.
> > > > Adding data after the union should be extremely rare. Do you
> > > > see any issues with the example below?
> > > >
> > > > offsetofend() can still find the right size.
> > > > e.g.
> > > > V1
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > > __u32 version;
> > > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > > __u32 format;
> > > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID
> > > > valid */ __u64 flags;
> > > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > > union {
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > > };
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > const static int
> > > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] =
> > > > { /* IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */ {offsetofend(struct
> > > > iommu_gpasid_bind_data, vtd)}, ...
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > V2, Add new_member at the end (forget padding for now).
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > > __u32 version;
> > > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > > __u32 format;
> > > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID
> > > > valid */ #define IOMMU_NEW_MEMBER_VAL (1 << 1) /* new
> > > > member added */ __u64 flags;
> > > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > > union {
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > > };
> > > > __u64 new_member;
> > > > };
> > > > const static int
> > > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] =
> > > > { /* IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */
> > > > {offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data,
> > > > vtd), offsetofend(struct
> > > > iommu_gpasid_bind_data,new_member)},
> > > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > V3, Add smmu to the union,larger than vtd
> > > >
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > > > __u32 version;
> > > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD 1
> > > > #define IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_SMMU 2
> > > > __u32 format;
> > > > #define IOMMU_SVA_GPASID_VAL (1 << 0) /* guest PASID
> > > > valid */ #define IOMMU_NEW_MEMBER_VAL (1 << 1) /* new
> > > > member added */ #define IOMMU_SVA_SMMU_SUPP (1 << 2) /*
> > > > SMMU data supported */ __u64 flags;
> > > > __u64 gpgd;
> > > > __u64 hpasid;
> > > > __u64 gpasid;
> > > > __u32 addr_width;
> > > > __u8 padding[12];
> > > > /* Vendor specific data */
> > > > union {
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > > > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_smmu smmu;
> > > > };
> > > > __u64 new_member;
> > > > };
> > > > const static int
> > > > iommu_uapi_data_size[NR_IOMMU_UAPI_TYPE][IOMMU_UAPI_VERSION] = {
> > > > /* IOMMU_UAPI_BIND_GPASID */
> > > > {offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data,vtd),
> > > > offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data, new_member),
> > > > offsetofend(struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data, new_member)},
> > > > ...
> > > > };
> > > >
> > >
> > > How are you not breaking rule #3, "Versions are backward
> > > compatible" with this? If the kernel is at version 3 and
> > > userspace is at version 2 then new_member exists at different
> > > offsets of the structure. The kernels iommu_uapi_data_size for
> > > V2 changed between version 2 and 3. Thanks,
> > >
> > You are right. if we want to add new member to the end of the
> > structure as well as expanding union, I think we have to fix the
> > size of the union. Would this work? (just an example for one struct)
> >
> >
> > @@ -344,6 +348,11 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd {
> > * @gpasid: Process address space ID used for the guest mm in
> > guest IOMMU
> > * @addr_width: Guest virtual address width
> > * @padding: Reserved for future use (should be zero)
> > + * @dummy Reserve space for vendor specific data in the
> > union. New
> > + * members added to the union cannot exceed the size of
> > dummy.
> > + * The fixed size union is needed to allow further
> > expansion
> > + * after the end of the union while still maintain
> > backward
> > + * compatibility.
> > * @vtd: Intel VT-d specific data
> > *
> > * Guest to host PASID mapping can be an identity or non-identity,
> > where guest @@ -365,6 +374,7 @@ struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data {
> > __u8 padding[12];
> > /* Vendor specific data */
> > union {
> > + __u8 dummy[128];
> > struct iommu_gpasid_bind_data_vtd vtd;
> > };
> > };
>
> It's not the most space efficient thing and we're just guessing at
> what might need to be added into that union in future, but it
> works... until it doesn't ;) One might also argue that we could
> inflate the padding field even further to serve the same purpose.
That was our initial intention, the padding field is already inflated
to accommodate any foreseeable extensions :)

Extensions beyond union was deemed unlikely that is why we use the
union at the end.

The intention of this patchset is not to change that, but rather
clarify and simplify the version checking.

> The only other route I can think of would be to let the user specify
> the offset of the variable size data from the start of the structure,
> for example similar to how we're laying out vfio migration region or
> how we do capabilities in vfio ioctls. This is where passing an
> argsz for each ioctl comes in handy so we're not limited to a
> structure, we can link various structures together in a chain. Of
> course that requires work on both the user and kernel side to pack
> and unpack, but it leaves a lot of flexibility in extending it.
> Thanks,
>
Yeah, that would work as well. I just feel IOMMU UAPI is unlikely to get
updated frequently, should be much less than adding new capabilities.
I think argsz could be viewed as the version field set by the
user, minsz is what kernel current code supports.

So let me summarize the options we have
1. Disallow adding new members to each structure other than reuse
padding bits or adding union members at the end.
2. Allow extension of the structures beyond union, but union size has
to be fixed with reserved spaces
3. Adopt VFIO argsz scheme, I don't think we need version for each
struct anymore. argsz implies the version that user is using assuming
UAPI data is extension only.

Jean, Eric, any comments? My preference is #1. In the apocalyptic event
when we run out of padding, perhaps we can introduce a new API_v2 :)

> Alex
>

[Jacob Pan]