From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4820C433FE for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 52AD86B0072; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4B3E56B0074; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:33:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 354856B0075; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:33:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E83E6B0072 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6E9140CCC for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:33:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80035523820.02.A65E168 Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E643140033 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:33:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1666132430; x=1697668430; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=fKAjNebD3x+hLBGIM8BspEWuV37YHAG5FIG0wLgK6Bk=; b=HHQg20vYEt7M5KPb5t2Sx3KWaRF57ePl0ke+YePWMPOSPXa0NV8C8RfE zSHU1wbrtaeWYU4pd6V/oMoNQKNMseDYLgBo4w1WJ43XfR0Tec6Tm1Fbo xVV5TavLv6OYQSn/d+6XubBN21uHJyEyCtmmYnuD461FZPrajwxodp/E/ E2WPBJ/YGSIym1KjETHOT4NkEu0F9GAXAQApoT07j7FBChnkTHiw0gh3E 9mYUBVfiJZH2vdfkxNaQ9RfDavXlbotGP0Xs1G7E1BaIhKpjX4HOFfx0f YAUexKP5Zn29XNPrxVixINwcqGdif952K8xl4iS5mnNXxwcBKqr/NuPGk w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10504"; a="289569915" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,194,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="289569915" Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2022 15:33:48 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10504"; a="628946034" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,194,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="628946034" Received: from vhavel-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO box.shutemov.name) ([10.252.51.115]) by orsmga002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2022 15:33:44 -0700 Received: by box.shutemov.name (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DA88104BA9; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:33:41 +0300 (+03) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 01:33:41 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Dave Hansen Cc: Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org, Kostya Serebryany , Andrey Ryabinin , Andrey Konovalov , Alexander Potapenko , Taras Madan , Dmitry Vyukov , "H . J . Lu" , Andi Kleen , Rick Edgecombe , Bharata B Rao , Jacob Pan , Ashok Raj , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 10/15] x86/mm, iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVM mutually exclusive Message-ID: <20221018223341.tiyypudh6k63mnnb@box.shutemov.name> References: <20221018113358.7833-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20221018113358.7833-11-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1666132430; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ghyW/u1wv78UXoQrbWYHhUDoCbO3679qVcTwkKhHOkA8C08sFIV7a8KXhfFrEE23YnVFvk cCa9Mm+nEWSliWKE3NkuBuPjL4/GHFUkDqIdAN3Yd1CTAZPArC5TbukoE7KecIt5NCDV7k OQcjFFxV94tHJTVXZ0QORi2UnUHt7ho= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=HHQg20vY; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.126) smtp.mailfrom=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1666132430; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=uMbCTGI2DnN7jQ/30Fiw0ZtXwsvr9DQamsx1NZ7AlqE=; b=1uqmki37r/iTpquod7CnZld4gXVh8xTrGt9OozAtKUXbf6y4yospAp/yiajySP8Nor/AQO vHtb6PUkqKvFLwDVANTFs9/IdAUfAfsQ96zOWizV7JwkzWg+N88Fsuc1CTpHjSmK0+FdHj LsnjXv1Q/Bebf2pRNxIpzPk6h/dZbaw= X-Stat-Signature: ets5w1ffci19i89sb6edz5nte1fpi1af X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1E643140033 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=HHQg20vY; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.126) smtp.mailfrom=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-HE-Tag: 1666132429-995461 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:00:38PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h > > index b0e9ea23758b..6b9ac2c60cec 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h > > @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ static inline void mm_reset_untag_mask(struct mm_struct *mm) > > mm->context.untag_mask = -1UL; > > } > > > > +#define arch_pgtable_dma_compat(mm) \ > > + (!mm_lam_cr3_mask(mm) || (mm->context.flags & MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVM)) > > #else > > This needs to be a 'static inline' unless there's a compelling and > documented reason that it can't be. Seems work fine. > > static inline unsigned long mm_lam_cr3_mask(struct mm_struct *mm) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > index a31e27b95b19..7bd22defb558 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/prctl.h > > @@ -23,5 +23,6 @@ > > #define ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK 0x4001 > > #define ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR 0x4002 > > #define ARCH_GET_MAX_TAG_BITS 0x4003 > > +#define ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVM 0x4004 > > > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_PRCTL_H */ > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > > index 9952e9f517ec..8faa8774bb93 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c > > @@ -783,6 +783,13 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits) > > goto out; > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA > > + if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && > > + !(mm->context.flags & MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVM)) { > > + ret = -EBUSY; > > + goto out; > > + } > > +#endif > > Is this #ifdef really necessary? CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA selects IOASID, > without which pasid_valid() is just stubbed out to 0. mm->pasid is only defined for CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA=y. Do you want me to add mm_has_valid_pasid()? -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov