From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753874AbeEOOLE (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 10:11:04 -0400 Received: from 8bytes.org ([81.169.241.247]:48652 "EHLO theia.8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753850AbeEOOLD (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 10:11:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:11:01 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Lu Baolu Cc: David Woodhouse , ashok.raj@intel.com, sanjay.k.kumar@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com, yi.y.sun@intel.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] iommu/vt-d: Improve PASID id and table management Message-ID: <20180515141101.GF18595@8bytes.org> References: <1525398084-28815-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1525398084-28815-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:41:15AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > PATCH 4~9 implement per domain PASID table. Current per IOMMU > PASID table implementation is insecure in the cases where > multiple devices under one single IOMMU unit support PASID > feature. With per domain PASID table, we can achieve finer > protection and isolation granularity. Hold on, we hat discussions in the past about doing a system-wide pasid space, so that every mm_struct with devices attached gets the same pasid across all devices it is talking to. Reason was that some devices (will) require this to work correctly. This goes into the opposite direction, so I am a bit confused here. Please explain, is this not longer necessary? Regards, Joerg From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] iommu/vt-d: Improve PASID id and table management Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:11:01 +0200 Message-ID: <20180515141101.GF18595@8bytes.org> References: <1525398084-28815-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1525398084-28815-1-git-send-email-baolu.lu-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Lu Baolu Cc: ashok.raj-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, sanjay.k.kumar-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, yi.y.sun-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, jacob.jun.pan-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, David Woodhouse List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:41:15AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > PATCH 4~9 implement per domain PASID table. Current per IOMMU > PASID table implementation is insecure in the cases where > multiple devices under one single IOMMU unit support PASID > feature. With per domain PASID table, we can achieve finer > protection and isolation granularity. Hold on, we hat discussions in the past about doing a system-wide pasid space, so that every mm_struct with devices attached gets the same pasid across all devices it is talking to. Reason was that some devices (will) require this to work correctly. This goes into the opposite direction, so I am a bit confused here. Please explain, is this not longer necessary? Regards, Joerg