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;
Feedback-ID: ie3994620:Fastmail
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:44:19 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     "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>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv16 11/17] x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually
 exclusive
Message-ID: <20230403094419.zl2ncsd4qyd35fex@box>
References: <20230312112612.31869-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230312112612.31869-12-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <CACT4Y+bnR=v0vUC_wTpd98Kpfd1KK--daPwjgnBL__r+wbHUkw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bnR=v0vUC_wTpd98Kpfd1KK--daPwjgnBL__r+wbHUkw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:18:57AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
> 
> ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR checks that task->mm == current->mm,
> shouldn't ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA check that as well?

Do you a particular race in mind? I cannot think of anything right away.

I guess we can add the check for consistency. But if there's a bug it is a
different story.

> Also it looks like currently to enable both LAM and SVA.
> LAM enabling checks for SVA, but SVA doesn't and both are not mutually
> exclusive.

For LAM we check SVM with mm_valid_pasid() && !test_bit() in
prctl_enable_tagged_addr().

For SVM we check for LAM with !mm_lam_cr3_mask() || test_bit() in
arch_pgtable_dma_compat() which called from iommu_sva_alloc_pasid().

Hm?


-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov