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: <582371FB.2040808@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:59:07 -0500
From:   Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....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 11/09/2016 12:03 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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
>
So, we have real systems where MSI doorbells are placed at the same IOVA
that could have memory for a guest, but not at the same IOVA as memory on real hw ?
How are memory holes passed to SMMU so it doesn't have this issue for bare-metal
(assign an IOVA that overlaps an MSI doorbell address)?