linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org,
	christian.koenig@amd.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
	alex.williamson@redhat.com, jgg@nvidia.com,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, aik@amd.com,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, vivek.kasireddy@intel.com,
	yilun.xu@intel.com, yilun.xu@linux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de,
	yan.y.zhao@intel.com, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, leon@kernel.org,
	baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, zhenzhong.duan@intel.com,
	tao1.su@intel.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, zhiw@nvidia.com,
	simona.vetter@ffwll.ch, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com,
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, kevin.tian@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 20/30] vfio/pci: Do TSM Unbind before zapping bars
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 10:50:11 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq5a34cilnxw.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250529053513.1592088-21-yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>

Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com> writes:

> When device is TSM Bound, some of its MMIO regions are controlled by
> secure firmware. E.g. TDX Connect would require these MMIO regions
> mappeed in S-EPT and never unmapped until device Unbound. Zapping bars
> irrespective of TSM Bound state may cause unexpected secure firmware
> errors. It is always safe to do TSM Unbind first, transiting the device
> to shared, then do whatever needed as before.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c |  4 +++
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c   | 41 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h   |  3 +++
>  3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> index 7ac062bd5044..4ffe661c9e59 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_config.c
> @@ -590,6 +590,7 @@ static int vfio_basic_config_write(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int pos,
>  		new_mem = !!(new_cmd & PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY);
>  
>  		if (!new_mem) {
> +			vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true);
>

Don't we need to re-bind the vdev with tsm_bind for the continued use of TDI?

>  		} else {
> @@ -712,6 +713,7 @@ static void vfio_lock_and_set_power_state(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  					  pci_power_t state)
>  {
>  	if (state >= PCI_D3hot) {
> +		vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  		vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  		vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true);
>  	} else {
> @@ -907,6 +909,7 @@ static int vfio_exp_config_write(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int pos,
>  						 &cap);
>  
>  		if (!ret && (cap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_FLR)) {
> +			vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true);
>  			pci_try_reset_function(vdev->pdev);
> @@ -992,6 +995,7 @@ static int vfio_af_config_write(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, int pos,
>  						&cap);
>  
>  		if (!ret && (cap & PCI_AF_CAP_FLR) && (cap & PCI_AF_CAP_TP)) {
> +			vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  			vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true);
>  			pci_try_reset_function(vdev->pdev);
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> index 92544e54c9c3..a8437fcecca1 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> @@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_runtime_pm_entry(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  	 * The vdev power related flags are protected with 'memory_lock'
>  	 * semaphore.
>  	 */
> +	vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  	vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  	vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(vdev, true);
>  
> @@ -693,11 +694,7 @@ void vfio_pci_core_close_device(struct vfio_device *core_vdev)
>  	eeh_dev_release(vdev->pdev);
>  #endif
>  
> -	if (vdev->is_tsm_bound) {
> -		vfio_iommufd_tsm_unbind(&vdev->vdev);
> -		pci_release_regions(vdev->pdev);
> -		vdev->is_tsm_bound = false;
> -	}
> +	__vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  
>  	vfio_pci_core_disable(vdev);
>  
> @@ -1222,6 +1219,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_reset(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  	if (!vdev->reset_works)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  	vfio_pci_zap_and_down_write_memory_lock(vdev);
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -1491,12 +1489,32 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_tsm_bind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +void __vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
> +{
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&vdev->vdev.dev_set->lock);
> +
> +	if (!vdev->is_tsm_bound)
> +		return;
> +
> +	vfio_iommufd_tsm_unbind(&vdev->vdev);
> +	pci_release_regions(pdev);
> +	vdev->is_tsm_bound = false;
>

Do we really need to check vdev->is_tsm_bound? The tsm_ops lock already
ensures that concurrent TSM operations can't happen, and repeated calls
to bind()/unbind() seem to be handled safely by pci_tsm_bind and pci_tsm_unbind.

> +}
> +
> +void vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&vdev->vdev.dev_set->lock);
> +	__vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
> +	mutex_unlock(&vdev->vdev.dev_set->lock);
> +}
>

If is_tsm_bound is no longer needed, and pci_release_regions /
request_region_exclusive are now handled within pci_tsm_unbind / bind,
do we still need mutex_lock() to guard this path?

> +
>  static int vfio_pci_ioctl_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  				     void __user *arg)
>  {
>  	unsigned long minsz = offsetofend(struct vfio_pci_tsm_unbind, flags);
>  	struct vfio_pci_tsm_unbind tsm_unbind;
> -	struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
>  
>  	if (copy_from_user(&tsm_unbind, arg, minsz))
>  		return -EFAULT;
> @@ -1504,15 +1522,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_ioctl_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  	if (tsm_unbind.argsz < minsz || tsm_unbind.flags)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&vdev->vdev.dev_set->lock);
> -
> -	if (!vdev->is_tsm_bound)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	vfio_iommufd_tsm_unbind(&vdev->vdev);
> -	pci_release_regions(pdev);
> -	vdev->is_tsm_bound = false;
> -	mutex_unlock(&vdev->vdev.dev_set->lock);
> +	vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -2526,6 +2536,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_dev_set_hot_reset(struct vfio_device_set *dev_set,
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> +		__vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(vdev);
>  		/*
>  		 * Take the memory write lock for each device and zap BAR
>  		 * mappings to prevent the user accessing the device while in
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> index 6f3e8eafdc35..e5bf27f46a73 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_priv.h
> @@ -130,4 +130,7 @@ static inline void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +void __vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev);
> +void vfio_pci_tsm_unbind(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev);
> +
>  #endif
> -- 
> 2.25.1

  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-02  5:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-29  5:34 [RFC PATCH 00/30] Host side (KVM/VFIO/IOMMUFD) support for TDISP using TSM Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 01/30] HACK: dma-buf: Introduce dma_buf_get_pfn_unlocked() kAPI Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 02/30] vfio: Export vfio device get and put registration helpers Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 03/30] vfio/pci: Share the core device pointer while invoking feature functions Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 04/30] vfio/pci: Allow MMIO regions to be exported through dma-buf Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 05/30] fixup! vfio/pci: fix dma-buf revoke typo on reset Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 06/30] HACK: vfio/pci: Support get_pfn() callback for dma-buf Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 07/30] KVM: Support vfio_dmabuf backed MMIO region Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 08/30] KVM: x86/mmu: Handle page fault for vfio_dmabuf backed MMIO Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 09/30] KVM: x86/mmu: Handle page fault for private MMIO Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 10/30] vfio/pci: Export vfio dma-buf specific info for importers Xu Yilun
2025-06-02 13:30   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-03  5:01     ` Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 11/30] KVM: vfio_dmabuf: Fetch VFIO specific dma-buf data for sanity check Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 12/30] iommufd/device: Associate a kvm pointer to iommufd_device Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 13/30] fixup! iommufd/selftest: Sync iommufd_device_bind() change to selftest Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 14/30] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Pass in kvm pointer to viommu_alloc Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 15/30] fixup: iommu/selftest: Sync .viommu_alloc() change to selftest Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:34 ` [RFC PATCH 16/30] iommufd/viommu: track the kvm pointer & its refcount in viommu core Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 17/30] iommufd/device: Add TSM Bind/Unbind for TIO support Xu Yilun
2025-06-02 12:43   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-03  6:20     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-03 12:21       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-04  8:40         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-04 13:24           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-06  7:59             ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 18/30] iommufd/viommu: Add trusted IOMMU configuration handlers for vdev Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 19/30] vfio/pci: Add TSM TDI bind/unbind IOCTLs for TEE-IO support Xu Yilun
2025-06-01 10:45   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-02 14:43     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-04 13:37       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-05  9:41         ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-05 15:09           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-06  3:25             ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-05 16:09           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-16  8:16           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-18  4:54             ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-05 12:03   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-05 15:10     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-05 16:17       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-05 16:33         ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-06  4:26           ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-06  9:32           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-06 12:09             ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 20/30] vfio/pci: Do TSM Unbind before zapping bars Xu Yilun
2025-06-02  5:20   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2025-06-02 13:56     ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-02 14:00   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-03  4:50     ` Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 21/30] iommufd/vdevice: Add TSM Guest request uAPI Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 22/30] fixup! PCI/TSM: Change the guest request type definition Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 23/30] coco/tdx_tsm: Introduce a "tdx" subsystem and "tsm" device Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 24/30] coco/tdx_tsm: TEE Security Manager driver for TDX Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 25/30] coco/tdx_tsm: Add connect()/disconnect() handlers prototype Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 26/30] coco/tdx_tsm: Add bind()/unbind()/guest_req() " Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 27/30] PCI/TSM: Add PCI driver callbacks to handle TSM requirements Xu Yilun
2025-06-02 13:06   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2025-06-03  5:52     ` Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 28/30] vfio/pci: Implement TSM handlers for MMIO Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 29/30] iommufd/vdevice: Implement TSM handlers for trusted DMA Xu Yilun
2025-05-29  5:35 ` [RFC PATCH 30/30] coco/tdx_tsm: Manage TDX Module enforced operation sequences for Unbind Xu Yilun
2025-06-02 13:37 ` [RFC PATCH 00/30] Host side (KVM/VFIO/IOMMUFD) support for TDISP using TSM Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-20  4:21   ` Xu Yilun
2025-06-11  1:55 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2025-06-21  1:07   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2025-06-25 10:45     ` Xu Yilun
2025-07-11 23:08       ` dan.j.williams
2025-07-15 11:09         ` Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=yq5a34cilnxw.fsf@kernel.org \
    --to=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
    --cc=aik@amd.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
    --cc=simona.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
    --cc=tao1.su@intel.com \
    --cc=vivek.kasireddy@intel.com \
    --cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
    --cc=yilun.xu@intel.com \
    --cc=yilun.xu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=zhenzhong.duan@intel.com \
    --cc=zhiw@nvidia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).