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;
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 18:45:32 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@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,
        Jacon Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling
Message-ID: <20220914154532.mmxfsr7eadgnxt3s@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20220830010104.1282-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <YxDvpLb77lwb8zaT@araj-dh-work>
 <20220904003952.fheisiloilxh3mpo@box.shutemov.name>
 <20220912224930.ukakmmwumchyacqc@box.shutemov.name>
 <20220914144518.46rhhyh7zmxieozs@box.shutemov.name>
 <YyHvF2K7ELVSTGvB@araj-MOBL2.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20220914151818.uupzpyd333qnnmlt@box.shutemov.name>
 <YyHz7H0uyqG58b3E@araj-MOBL2.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YyHz7H0uyqG58b3E@araj-MOBL2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:18:18PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch below implements something like this. It is PoC, build-tested only.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To be honest, I hate it. It is clearly a layering violation. It feels
> > > > > > dirty. But I don't see any better way as we tie orthogonal features
> > > > > > together.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also I have no idea how to make forced PASID allocation if LAM enabled.
> > > > > > What the API has to look like?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jacob, Ashok, any comment on this part?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I expect in many cases LAM will be enabled very early (like before malloc
> > > > > is functinal) in process start and it makes PASID allocation always fail.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any way out?
> > > > 
> > > > We need closure on this to proceed. Any clue?
> > > 
> > > Failing PASID allocation seems like the right thing to do here. If the
> > > application is explicitly allocating PASID's it can opt-out using the
> > > similar mechanism you have for LAM enabling. So user takes
> > > responsibility for sanitizing pointers. 
> > > 
> > > If some library is using an accelerator without application knowledge,
> > > that would use the failure as a mechanism to use an alternate path if
> > > one exists.
> > > 
> > > I don't know if both LAM and SVM need a separate forced opt-in (or i
> > > don't have an opinion rather). Is this what you were asking? 
> > > 
> > > + Joerg, JasonG in case they have an opinion.
> > 
> > My point is that the patch provides a way to override LAM vs. PASID mutual
> > exclusion, but only if PASID allocated first. If we enabled LAM before
> > PASID is allcoated there's no way to forcefully allocate PASID, bypassing
> > LAM check. I think there should be one, no?
> 
> Yes, we should have one for force enabling SVM too if the application
> asks for forgiveness. 

What is the right API here?

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov