Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/7] A General Accelerator Framework, WarpDrive | linux-crypto

quoted

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:33:59PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:33:59 -0400
From: Jerome Glisse <redacted>
To: Kenneth Lee <redacted>
CC: Kenneth Lee <redacted>, Zaibo Xu <redacted>,
 Herbert Xu [off-list ref], kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan
 Corbet [off-list ref], Greg Kroah-Hartman [off-list ref],
 Joerg Roedel [off-list ref], linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Sanjay Kumar
 [off-list ref], Hao Fang [off-list ref],
 iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linuxarm@huawei.com, Alex Williamson [off-list ref],
 linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Zhou Wang [off-list ref],
 Philippe Ombredanne [off-list ref], Thomas Gleixner
 [off-list ref], "David S . Miller" [off-list ref],
 linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org, Lu Baolu [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 PATCH 0/7] A General Accelerator Framework, WarpDrive
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Message-ID: [ref]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:42:09AM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:54:23AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 12:53:06PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 12:01:38PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:31:33AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:45:32PM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:15:09AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:00:19 -0400 Jerome Glisse [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 08:51:57AM +0800, Kenneth Lee wrote:
[...]

I took a look at i915_gem_execbuffer_ioctl(). It seems it "copy_from_user" the
user memory to the kernel. That is not what we need. What we try to get is: the
user application do something on its data, and push it away to the accelerator,
and says: "I'm tied, it is your turn to do the job...". Then the accelerator has
the memory, referring any portion of it with the same VAs of the application,
even the VAs are stored inside the memory itself.
You were not looking at right place see drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
It does GUP and create GEM object AFAICR you can wrap that GEM object into a
dma buffer object.
Thank you for directing me to this implementation. It is interesting:).

But it is not yet solve my problem. If I understand it right, the userptr in
i915 do the following:

1. The user process sets a user pointer with size to the kernel via ioctl.
2. The kernel wraps it as a dma-buf and keeps the process's mm for further
   reference.
3. The user pages are allocated, GUPed or DMA mapped to the device. So the data
   can be shared between the user space and the hardware.

But my scenario is: 

1. The user process has some data in the user space, pointed by a pointer, say
   ptr1. And within the memory, there may be some other pointers, let's say one
   of them is ptr2.
2. Now I need to assign ptr1 *directly* to the hardware MMIO space. And the
   hardware must refer ptr1 and ptr2 *directly* for data.

Userptr lets the hardware and process share the same memory space. But I need
them to share the same *address space*. So IOMMU is a MUST for WarpDrive,
NOIOMMU mode, as Jean said, is just for verifying some of the procedure is OK.
So to be 100% clear should we _ignore_ the non SVA/SVM case ?
If so then wait for necessary SVA/SVM to land and do warp drive
without non SVA/SVM path.
I think we should clear the concept of SVA/SVM here. As my understanding, Share
Virtual Address/Memory means: any virtual address in a process can be used by
device at the same time. This requires IOMMU device to support PASID. And
optionally, it requires the feature of page-fault-from-device.
Yes we agree on what SVA/SVM is. There is a one gotcha thought, access
to range that are MMIO map ie CPU page table pointing to IO memory, IIRC
it is undefined what happens on some platform for a device trying to
access those using SVA/SVM.

But before the feature is settled down, IOMMU can be used immediately in the
current kernel. That make it possible to assign ONE process's virtual addresses
to the device's IOMMU page table with GUP. This make WarpDrive work well for one
process.
UH ? How ? You want to GUP _every_ single valid address in the process
and map it to the device ? How do you handle new vma, page being replace
(despite GUP because of things that utimately calls zap pte) ...

Again here you said that the device must be able to access _any_ valid
pointer. With GUP this is insane.

So i am assuming this is not what you want to do without SVA/SVM ie with
GUP you have a different programming model, one in which the userspace
must first bind _range_ of memory to the device and get a DMA address
for the range.

Again, GUP range of process address space to map it to a device so that
userspace can use the device on the mapped range is something that do
exist in various places in the kernel.
Yes same as your expectation, in WarpDrive, we use the concept of "sharing" to
do so. If some memory is going to be shared among process and devices, we use
wd_share_mem(queue, ptr, size) to share those memory. When the queue is working
in this mode, the point is valid in those memory segments. The wd_share_mem call
vfio dma map syscall which will do GUP. 

If SVA/SVM is enabled, user space can set SHARE_ALL flags to the queue. Then
wd_share_mem() is not necessary.

This is really not popular when we started the work on WarpDrive. The GUP
document said it should be put within the scope of mm_sem is locked. Because GUP
simply increase the page refcount, not keep the mapping between the page and the
vma. We keep our work together with VFIO to make sure the problem can be solved
in one deal.

And now we have GUP-longterm and many accounting work in VFIO, we don't want to
do that again.

Now We are talking about SVA and PASID, just to make sure WarpDrive can benefit
from the feature in the future. It dose not means WarpDrive is useless before
that. And it works for our Zip and RSA accelerators in physical world.
Just not with random process address ...

If you still want non SVA/SVM path what you want to do only works
if both ptr1 and ptr2 are in a range that is DMA mapped to the
device (moreover you need DMA address to match process address
which is not an easy feat).

Now even if you only want SVA/SVM, i do not see what is the point
of doing this inside VFIO. AMD GPU driver does not and there would
be no benefit for them to be there. Well a AMD VFIO mdev device
driver for QEMU guest might be useful but they have SVIO IIRC.

For SVA/SVM your usage model is:

Setup:
    - user space create a warp drive context for the process
    - user space create a device specific context for the process
    - user space create a user space command queue for the device
    - user space bind command queue

    At this point the kernel driver has bound the process address
    space to the device with a command queue and userspace

Usage:
    - user space schedule work and call appropriate flush/update
      ioctl from time to time. Might be optional depends on the
      hardware, but probably a good idea to enforce so that kernel
      can unbind the command queue to bind another process command
      queue.
    ...

Cleanup:
    - user space unbind command queue
    - user space destroy device specific context
    - user space destroy warp drive context
    All the above can be implicit when closing the device file.

So again in the above model i do not see anywhere something from
VFIO that would benefit this model.
Let me show you how the model will be if I use VFIO:

Setup (Kernel part)
	- Kernel driver do every as usual to serve the other functionality, NIC
	  can still be registered to netdev, encryptor can still be registered
	  to crypto...
	- At the same time, the driver can devote some of its hardware resource
	  and register them as a mdev creator to the VFIO framework. This just
	  need limited change to the VFIO type1 driver.
In the above VFIO does not help you one bit ... you can do that with
as much code with new common device as front end.

Setup (User space)
	- System administrator create mdev via the mdev creator interface.
	- Following VFIO setup routine, user space open the mdev's group, there is
	  only one group for one device.
	- Without PASID support, you don't need to do anything. With PASID, bind
	  the PASID to the device via VFIO interface.
	- Get the device from the group via VFIO interface and mmap it the user
	  space for device's MMIO access (for the queue).
	- Map whatever memory you need to share with the device with VFIO
	  interface.
	- (opt) Add more devices into the container if you want to share the
	  same address space with them
So all VFIO buys you here is boiler plate code that does insert_pfn()
to handle MMIO mapping. Which is just couple hundred lines of boiler
plate code.
No. With VFIO, I don't need to:

1. GUP and accounting for RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
2. Keep all GUP pages for releasing (VFIO uses the rb_tree to do so)
2. Handle the PASID on SMMU (ARM's IOMMU) myself.
3. Multiple devices menagement (VFIO uses container to manage this)

And even as a boiler plate, it is valueable, the memory thing is sensitive
interface to user space, it can easily become a security problem. If I can
achieve my target within the scope of VFIO, why not? At lease it has been
proved to be safe for the time being.

Cleanup:
	- User space close the group file handler
	- There will be a problem to let the other process know the mdev is
	  freed to be used again. My RFCv1 choose a file handler solution. Alex
	  dose not like it. But it is not a big problem. We can always have a
	  scheduler process to manage the state of the mdev or even we can
	  switch back to the RFCv1 solution without too much effort if we like
	  in the future.
If you were outside VFIO you would have more freedom on how to do that.
For instance process opening the device file can be placed on queue and
first one in the queue get to use the device until it closes/release the
device. Then next one in queue get the device ...
Yes. I do like the file handle solution. But I hope the solution become mature
as soon as possible. Many of our products, and as I know include some of our
partners, are waiting for a long term solution as direction. If I rely on some
unmature solution, they may choose some deviated, customized solution. That will
be much harmful. Compare to this, the freedom is not so important...

Except for the minimum update to the type1 driver and use sdmdev to manage the
interrupt sharing, I don't need any extra code to gain the address sharing
capability. And the capability will be strengthen along with the upgrade of VFIO.

And I don't understand why I should avoid to use VFIO? As Alex said, VFIO is the
user driver framework. And I need exactly a user driver interface. Why should I
invent another wheel? It has most of stuff I need:

1. Connecting multiple devices to the same application space
2. Pinning and DMA from the application space to the whole set of device
3. Managing hardware resource by device

We just need the last step: make sure multiple applications and the kernel can
share the same IOMMU. Then why shouldn't we use VFIO?
Because tons of other drivers already do all of the above outside VFIO. Many
driver have a sizeable userspace side to them (anything with ioctl do) so they
can be construded as userspace driver too.
Ignoring if there are *tons* of drivers are doing that;), even I do the same as
i915 and solve the address space problem. And if I don't need to with VFIO, why
should I spend so much effort to do it again?
Because you do not need any code from VFIO, nor do you need to reinvent
things. If non SVA/SVM matters to you then use dma buffer. If not then
i do not see anything in VFIO that you need.
As I have explain, if I don't use VFIO, at lease I have to do all that has been
done in i915 or even more than that.
So beside the MMIO mmap() handling and dma mapping of range of user space
address space (again all very boiler plate code duplicated accross the
kernel several time in different forms). You do not gain anything being
inside VFIO right ?
As I said, rb-tree for gup, rlimit accounting, cooperation on SMMU, and mature
user interface are our concern.

So there is no reasons to do that under VFIO. Especialy as in your example
it is not a real user space device driver, the userspace portion only knows
about writting command into command buffer AFAICT.

VFIO is for real userspace driver where interrupt, configurations, ... ie
all the driver is handled in userspace. This means that the userspace have
to be trusted as it could program the device to do DMA to anywhere (if
IOMMU is disabled at boot which is still the default configuration in the
kernel).
But as Alex explained, VFIO is not simply used by VM. So it need not to have all
stuffs as a driver in host system. And I do need to share the user space as DMA
buffer to the hardware. And I can get it with just a little update, then it can
service me perfectly. I don't understand why I should choose a long route.
Again this is not the long route i do not see anything in VFIO that
benefit you in the SVA/SVM case. A basic character device driver can
do that.

So i do not see any reasons to do anything you want inside VFIO. All you
want to do can be done outside as easily. Moreover it would be better if
you define clearly each scenario because from where i sit it looks like
you are opening the door wide open to userspace to DMA anywhere when IOMMU
is disabled.

When IOMMU is disabled you can _not_ expose command queue to userspace
unless your device has its own page table and all commands are relative
to that page table and the device page table is populated by kernel driver
in secure way (ie by checking that what is populated can be access).

I do not believe your example device to have such page table nor do i see
a fallback path when IOMMU is disabled that force user to do ioctl for
each commands.

Yes i understand that you target SVA/SVM but still you claim to support
non SVA/SVM. The point is that userspace can not be trusted if you want
to have random program use your device. I am pretty sure that all user
of VFIO are trusted process (like QEMU).

Finaly i am convince that the IOMMU grouping stuff related to VFIO is
useless for your usecase. I really do not see the point of that, it
does complicate things for you for no reasons AFAICT.
Indeed, I don't like the group thing. I believe VFIO's maintains would not like
it very much either;). But the problem is, the group reflects to the same
IOMMU(unit), which may shared with other devices.  It is a security problem. I
cannot ignore it. I have to take it into account event I don't use VFIO.
To me it seems you are making a policy decission in kernel space ie
wether the device should be isolated in its own group or not is a
decission that is up to the sys admin or something in userspace.
Right now existing user of SVA/SVM don't (at least AFAICT).

Do we really want to force such isolation ?
But it is not my decision, that how the iommu subsystem is designed. Personally
I don't like it at all, because all our hardwares have their own stream id
(device id). I don't need the group concept at all. But the iommu subsystem
assume some devices may share the name device ID to a single IOMMU.
My question was do you really want to force group isolation for the
device ? Existing SVA/SVM capable driver do not force that, they let
the userspace decide this (sysadm, distributions, ...). Being part of
VFIO (in the way you do, likely ways to avoid this inside VFIO too)
force this decision ie make a policy decision without userspace having
anything to say about it.

The IOMMU group thing as always been doubt full to me, it is advertise
as allowing to share resources (ie IOMMU page table) between devices.
But this assume that all device driver in the group have some way of
communicating with each other to share common DMA address that point
to memory devices care. I believe only VFIO does that and probably
only when use by QEMU.

Anyway my question is:

Is it that much useful to be inside VFIO (to avoid few hundred lines
of boiler plate code) given that it forces you into a model (group
isolation) that so far have never been the prefered way for all
existing device driver that already do what you want to achieve ?
You mean to say I create another framework and copy most of the code from VFIO?
It is hard to believe the mainline kernel will take my code. So how about let me
try the VFIO way first and try that if it won't work? ;)

From where i stand i do not see overwhelming reasons to do what you
are doing inside VFIO.

To me it would make more sense to have regular device driver. They
all can have device file under same hierarchy to make devices with
same programming model easy to discover.

Jérôme
Cheers
-- 
			-Kenneth(Hisilicon)

================================================================================
本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or
partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help