linux-kernel - Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

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]

Message-ID: <20161109170326.GG17771@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:03:26 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        marc.zyngier@....com, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        drjones@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        punit.agrawal@....com, diana.craciun@....com,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, arnd@...db.de, jcm@...hat.com,
        dwmw@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Summary of LPC guest MSI discussion in Santa Fe

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:52:33PM -0500, Don Dutile wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 06:35 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:29:22 +0100
> >Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>Is my understanding correct, that you need to tell userspace about the
> >>location of the doorbell (in the IOVA space) in case (2), because even
> >>though the configuration of the device is handled by the (host) kernel
> >>through trapping of the BARs, we have to avoid the VFIO user programming
> >>the device to create other DMA transactions to this particular address,
> >>since that will obviously conflict and either not produce the desired
> >>DMA transactions or result in unintended weird interrupts?

Yes, that's the crux of the issue.

> >Correct, if the MSI doorbell IOVA range overlaps RAM in the VM, then
> >it's potentially a DMA target and we'll get bogus data on DMA read from
> >the device, and lose data and potentially trigger spurious interrupts on
> >DMA write from the device.  Thanks,
> >
> That's b/c the MSI doorbells are not positioned *above* the SMMU, i.e.,
> they address match before the SMMU checks are done.  if
> all DMA addrs had to go through SMMU first, then the DMA access could
> be ignored/rejected.

That's actually not true :( The SMMU can't generally distinguish between MSI
writes and DMA writes, so it would just see a write transaction to the
doorbell address, regardless of how it was generated by the endpoint.

Will