Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <356d4ad1-f7d8-b8ff-3b63-819a64bf5b9f@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:41:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
References: <20220830010104.1282-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <YxDvpLb77lwb8zaT@araj-dh-work>
 <20220904003952.fheisiloilxh3mpo@box.shutemov.name>
 <Yxtk4gMbcVgTKzKg@araj-dh-work> <20220912133935.3bb3e247@jacob-builder>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220912133935.3bb3e247@jacob-builder>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/12/22 13:39, Jacob Pan wrote:
>>> +	if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && !forced) {
> I don't think this works since we have lazy pasid free.  for example,
> after all the devices did sva_unbind, mm->pasid  we'll remain valid until
> mmdrop(). LAM  should be supported in this case.

Nah, it works fine.

It just means that the rules are "you can't do LAM if your process
*EVER* got a PASID" instead of "you can't do LAM if you are actively
using your PASID".

We knew that PASID use would be a one-way trip for a process when we
moved to the simplified implementation.  This is just more fallout from
that.  It's fine.

> Perhaps, we could introduce another prctl flag for SVA, PR_GET_SVA?
> Both iommu driver and LAM can set/query the flag. LAM applications may not
> be the only ones want to know if share virtual addressing is  on.

I don't think it's a good idea to add yet more UABI around this issue.
Won't the IOMMU folks eventually get their hardware in line with LAM?
Isn't this situation temporary?