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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:41:38 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        "chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
        "peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
        "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain
Message-ID: <ZNJ+Uv/WJwngosjJ@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230724111335.107427-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20230724111335.107427-10-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527690EBAA872A16AE8926F88C0BA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB7529F4D4DABBE29E9B7BF5C9C30CA@DS0PR11MB7529.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZNGypUee/U9d68TZ@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZNI2O4Upyna5AWDA@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZNI2O4Upyna5AWDA@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2023 17:42:03.9678
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 26d06e0f-a556-47eb-0254-08db9836c72f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1PEPF000044F4.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS7PR12MB6024
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 09:34:03AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 08:12:37PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:08:29PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:14 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(struct iommu_domain
> > > > > *domain,
> > > > > +                                         void *user_data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +   struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc *req = user_data;
> > > > > +   struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate *inv_info = user_data;
> > > > > +   struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain);
> > > > > +   unsigned int entry_size = inv_info->entry_size;
> > > > > +   u64 uptr = inv_info->inv_data_uptr;
> > > > > +   u64 nr_uptr = inv_info->entry_nr_uptr;
> > > > > +   struct device_domain_info *info;
> > > > > +   u32 entry_nr, index;
> > > > > +   unsigned long flags;
> > > > > +   int ret = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   if (get_user(entry_nr, (uint32_t __user *)u64_to_user_ptr(nr_uptr)))
> > > > > +           return -EFAULT;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   for (index = 0; index < entry_nr; index++) {
> > > > > +           ret = copy_struct_from_user(req, sizeof(*req),
> > > > > +                                       u64_to_user_ptr(uptr + index *
> > > > > entry_size),
> > > > > +                                       entry_size);
> > > >
> > > > If continuing this direction then the driver should also check minsz etc.
> > > > for struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate and iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc
> > > > since they are uAPI and subject to change.
> > > 
> > > Then needs to define size in the uapi data structure, and copy size first and
> > > check minsz before going forward. How about the structures for hwpt alloc
> > > like struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1? Should check minsz for them as well?
> > 
> > Assuming that every uAPI data structure needs a min_size, we can
> > either add a structure holding all min_sizes like iommufd main.c
> > or have another xx_min_len in iommu_/domain_ops.
> 
> If driver is doing the copy it is OK that driver does the min_size
> check too

Ah, just realized my reply above was missing a context..

Yi and I are having a concern that the core iommu_hpwt_alloc()
and iommu_hwpt_cache_invalidate(), in the nesting series, copy
data without checking the min_sizes. So, we are trying to add
the missing piece into the next version but not sure which way
could be optimal.

It probably makes sense to add cache_invalidate_user_min_len
next to the existing cache_invalidate_user_data_len. For the
iommu_hwpt_alloc, we are missing a data_len, as the core just
uses sizeof(union iommu_domain_user_data) when calling the
copy_struct_from_user().

Perhaps we could add two pairs of data_len/min_len in the ops
structs:
	// iommu_ops
	const size_t domain_alloc_user_data_len; // for sanity&copy
	const size_t domain_alloc_user_min_len; // for sanity only
	// iommu_domain_ops
	const size_t cache_invalidate_user_data_len; // for sanity&copy
	const size_t cache_invalidate_user_min_len; // for sanity only

Thanks
Nic