lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 09/13] iommu/sva: Refactoring iommu_sva_bind/unbind_device()
From
On 2022/8/18 21:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 09:20:20AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * iommu_sva_bind_device() - Bind a process address space to a device
>> + * @dev: the device
>> + * @mm: the mm to bind, caller must hold a reference to mm_users
>> + *
>> + * Create a bond between device and address space, allowing the device to access
>> + * the mm using the returned PASID. If a bond already exists between @device and
>> + * @mm, it is returned and an additional reference is taken. Caller must call
>> + * iommu_sva_unbind_device() to release each reference.
>> + *
>> + * iommu_dev_enable_feature(dev, IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA) must be called first, to
>> + * initialize the required SVA features.
>> + *
>> + * On error, returns an ERR_PTR value.
>> + */
>> +struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_domain *domain;
>> + struct iommu_sva *bond;
>
> This is called handle below, pick one name please

Updated.

>
>> + ioasid_t max_pasids;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + max_pasids = dev->iommu->max_pasids;
>> + if (!max_pasids)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
>> +
>> + /* Allocate mm->pasid if necessary. */
>> + ret = iommu_sva_alloc_pasid(mm, 1, max_pasids - 1);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> +
>> + bond = kzalloc(sizeof(*bond), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!bond)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock);
>> + /* Search for an existing domain. */
>> + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid(dev, mm->pasid);
>> + if (domain) {
>
> This isn't safe, or sane. A driver could have attached something to
> this PASID that is not a SVA domain and thus not protected by the
> iommu_sva_lock.
>
> At a minimum you should add a type match to
> iommu_get_domain_for_dev_pasid(), eg to confirm it is a SVA domain and
> do that check under the xa_lock of the pasid xarray.
>
> And then the general idea is that SVA domain attach/detach must hold
> this janky global lock.

Make sense. I will add this logic.

>
>> + refcount_inc(&domain->users);
>
> This atomic is always processed under the iommu_sva_lock, so it
> doesn't need to be an atomic anymore.

Will change it to an integer.

>
> Otherwise this design looks OK to me too

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-23 15:16    [W:0.051 / U:1.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site