Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] iommu/sva: Assign a PASID to mm on PASID allocation and free it on mm exit

Fenghua Yu
2022-02-10T18:31:44Z

Hi, Tony,

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 09:24:50AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:27:50AM -0800, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > Hi, Jacob,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 07:16:14PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > Hi Fenghua,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:02:48 -0800, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1047,8 +1040,6 @@ struct iommu_sva *intel_svm_bind(struct device
> > > > *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, void }
> > > >
> > > > sva = intel_svm_bind_mm(iommu, dev, mm, flags);
> > > > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sva))
> > > > - intel_svm_free_pasid(mm);
> > > If bind fails, the PASID has no IOMMU nor CPU context. It should be safe to
> > > free here.
> >
> > The PASID can not be freed even if bind fails. The PASID allocated earlier
> > (either in this thread or in another thread) might be populated to other
> > threads already and being used now.
> >
> > Without freeing the PASID on bind failure, the worst case is the PASID might
> > not be used in the process (and will be freed on process exit anyway).
> >
> > This all matches with the PASID life time described in the commit message.
>
> But what does this mean for the user that failed that intel_svm_bind_mm()?
>

That means the user may have a PASID but there is no PASID entry for the
device. Then ENQCMD cannot be executed successfully.

> Here's a scenario:
>
> Process sets up to use PASID capable device #1. Everything works,
> so the process has mm->pasid, and the IOMMU has the tables to map
> virtual addresses coming from device #1 using that PASID.
>
> Now the same process asks to start using PASID capable device #2,
> but there is a failure at intel_svm_bind_mm().
>
> Fenghua is right that we shouldn't free the PASID. It is in use
> by at least one thread of the process to access device #1.
>
> But what happens with device #2? Does the caller of intel_svm_bind()
> do the right thing with the IS_ERR_OR_NULL return value to let the
> user know that device #2 isn't accessible?

A driver caller of intel_svm_bind() should handle this failure, i.e. fail
the binding and let the user know the failure.

Even if the driver doesn't do the right thing to handle the failure,
intel_svm_bind() doesn't set up a PASID entry for device #2.

One example is IDXD driver. User calls open()->IDXD driver idxd_cdev_open()
->intel_svm_bind()->intel_svm_bind_mm(). idxd_cdev_open() gets failed "sva"
and passes the PTR_ERR(sva) to the user and the user cannot open the device.
Due to the failure, no PASID entry is set up for the device.

Even if the user ignores the open() failure and tries to run ENQCMD on
device #2, a PASID table fault will be generated due to no PASID entry
for the device and the ENQCMD execution will fail.

Thanks.

-Fenghua