linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Device isolation infrastructure v2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:25:15 +1100
From:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, aik@...abs.ru,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, chrisw@...hat.com, agraf@...e.de,
	scottwood@...escale.com, B08248@...escale.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	joro@...tes.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device isolation infrastructure v2

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:56:40PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 09:31 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > When we're running paravirtualized under pHyp, it's impossible to
> > merge multiple PEs into one domain per se.  We could fake it rather
> > nastily by replicating all map/unmaps across mutiple PEs.  When
> > running bare metal, we could do so a bit more nicely by assigning
> > multiple PEs the same TCE pointer, but we have no mechanism to do so
> > at present. 
> 
> VT-d does share the page tables, as you could on bare metal. But it's an
> implementation detail — there's nothing *fundamentally* wrong with
> having to do the map/unmap for each PE, is there? It's only at VM setup
> time, so it doesn't really matter if it's slow.
> 
> Surely that's the only way you're going to present the guest with the
> illusion of having no IOMMU; so that DMA to any given guest physical
> address "just works".
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps you don't want to do that at all. Perhaps
> you're better off presenting a virtualised IOMMU to the guest and
> *insisting* that it fully uses it in order to do any DMA at all?

Not only do we want to, we more or less *have* to.  Existing kernels,
which are used to being paravirt under phyp expect and need a paravirt
iommu.  DMA without iommu setup just doesn't happen.  And the
map/unmap hypercalls are frequently a hot path, so slow does matter.

The other problem is that each domain's IOVA window is often fairly
small, a limitation that would get even worse if we try to put too
many devices in there.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/