Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu: Use the user PGD for SVA if PTI is enabled

[Jacob Pan]

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:31:20 -0700, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On 8/22/22 13:12, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > @@ -394,7 +395,9 @@ static struct iommu_sva *intel_svm_bind_mm(struct
> > intel_iommu *iommu, sflags = (flags & SVM_FLAG_SUPERVISOR_MODE) ?
> >  			PASID_FLAG_SUPERVISOR_MODE : 0;
> >  	sflags |= cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LA57) ?
> > PASID_FLAG_FL5LP : 0;
> > -	ret = intel_pasid_setup_first_level(iommu, dev, mm->pgd,
> > mm->pasid, +
> > +	pgd = static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PTI) ?
> > kernel_to_user_pgdp(mm->pgd) : mm->pgd;
> > +	ret = intel_pasid_setup_first_level(iommu, dev, pgd, mm->pasid,
> >  					    FLPT_DEFAULT_DID, sflags);
> >  
> 
> This X86_FEATURE_PTI should really be done within a helper.
> 
> I'd probably do this with a *new* helper since all of the existing
> kernel_to_user_pgdp() users seem to be within a PTI #ifdef.
> 
> Maybe something like:
> 
> pgd_t *mm_user_pgd(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
> 	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_PTI))
> 		return kernel_to_user_pgdp(mm->pgd);
> #endif
> 	return mm->pgd;
> }
> 
Sounds good. I thought about a helper also, thinking there are so many other
cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PTI) checks already :)

> That #ifdef could even go away if your kernel_to_user_pgdp() stub from
> patch 1/2 was available.  I'm not sure it's worth it though.
I will remove 1/2 and keep the uniform style of the existing helpers.

Thanks for the suggestion,

Jacob