Re: [PATCH v4 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add 256-bit invalidation descriptor support

[Lu Baolu]

Hi,

On 11/8/18 3:20 PM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 2:14 PM
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/8/18 1:45 PM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 1:25 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add 256-bit invalidation
> > > > descriptor support
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 11/8/18 11:49 AM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:17 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add 256-bit invalidation
> > > > > > descriptor support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Yi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/7/18 2:07 PM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Baolu,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 1:32 PM
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >      drivers/iommu/dmar.c                | 83 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > > > > >      drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c           | 76 ++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > > > > >      drivers/iommu/intel_irq_remapping.c |  6 ++-
> > > > > > > >      include/linux/intel-iommu.h         |  9 +++-
> > > > > > > >      4 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c index
> > > > > > > > d9c748b6f9e4..ec10427b98ac 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -1160,6 +1160,7 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct
> > > > > > > > intel_iommu *iommu, int
> > > > > > > > index)
> > > > > > > >      	int head, tail;
> > > > > > > >      	struct q_inval *qi = iommu->qi;
> > > > > > > >      	int wait_index = (index + 1) % QI_LENGTH;
> > > > > > > > +	int shift = qi_shift(iommu);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >      	if (qi->desc_status[wait_index] == QI_ABORT)
> > > > > > > >      		return -EAGAIN;
> > > > > > > > @@ -1173,13 +1174,15 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct
> > > > > > > > intel_iommu *iommu, int index)
> > > > > > > >      	 */
> > > > > > > >      	if (fault & DMA_FSTS_IQE) {
> > > > > > > >      		head = readl(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQH_REG);
> > > > > > > > -		if ((head >> DMAR_IQ_SHIFT) == index) {
> > > > > > > > +		if ((head >> shift) == index) {
> > > > > > > > +			struct qi_desc *desc = qi->desc + head;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >      			pr_err("VT-d detected invalid descriptor: "
> > > > > > > >      				"low=%llx, high=%llx\n",
> > > > > > > > -				(unsigned long long)qi->desc[index].low,
> > > > > > > > -				(unsigned long long)qi->desc[index].high);
> > > > > > > > -			memcpy(&qi->desc[index], &qi->desc[wait_index],
> > > > > > > > -					sizeof(struct qi_desc));
> > > > > > > > +				(unsigned long long)desc->qw0,
> > > > > > > > +				(unsigned long long)desc->qw1);
> > > > > > > Still missing qw2 and qw3. May make the print differ based on if smts is
> > configed.
> > > > > > qw2 and qw3 are reserved from software point of view. We don't need
> > > > > > to print it for information.
> > > > > But for Scalable mode, it should be valid?
> > > > No. It's reserved for software.
> > > No, I donât think so. PRQ response would also be queued to hardware by
> > > QI. For such QI descriptors, the high bits are not reserved.
> >
> > Do you mean the private data fields of a page request descriptor or a page group
> > response descriptor? Those fields contains software defined private data (might a
> > kernel pointer?). We should avoid leaking such information in the generic kernel
> > message for security consideration.
> > Or anything I missed?
>
> yes, I'm not sure what kind of data it may be in the private data field. From software
> point of view, it may be helpful to show the full content of the QI descriptor for error
> triage. Personally, I'm fine if you keep it on this point.

Okay, thanks.

I think I need to put some comments there so that people could
understand my consideration.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu