Message-ID: <cd246966-7b24-3b78-0660-3a63ea9b9fa2@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:42:12 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@....com>,
        Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "eric.auger.pro@...il.com" <eric.auger.pro@...il.com>,
        "christoffer.dall@...aro.org" <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:     "drjones@...hat.com" <drjones@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "punit.agrawal@....com" <punit.agrawal@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "geethasowjanya.akula@...il.com" <geethasowjanya.akula@...il.com>,
        Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@....com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com" <pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com>,
        "shankerd@...eaurora.org" <shankerd@...eaurora.org>,
        "gpkulkarni@...il.com" <gpkulkarni@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/17] irqdomain: irq_domain_check_msi_remap

On 06/01/17 04:27, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Auger Eric [mailto:eric.auger@...hat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 5:39 PM
>> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>; eric.auger.pro@...il.com;
>> christoffer.dall@...aro.org; robin.murphy@....com;
>> alex.williamson@...hat.com; will.deacon@....com; joro@...tes.org;
>> tglx@...utronix.de; jason@...edaemon.net; linux-arm-
>> kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Cc: drjones@...hat.com; kvm@...r.kernel.org; punit.agrawal@....com;
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; geethasowjanya.akula@...il.com; Diana
>> Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@....com>; iommu@...ts.linux-
>> foundation.org; pranav.sawargaonkar@...il.com; Bharat Bhushan
>> <bharat.bhushan@....com>; shankerd@...eaurora.org;
>> gpkulkarni@...il.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/17] irqdomain: irq_domain_check_msi_remap
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 05/01/2017 12:57, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 05/01/17 11:29, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On 05/01/2017 12:25, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 05/01/17 10:45, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/01/2017 16:27, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/01/17 14:11, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2017 14:46, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/17 13:32, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This new function checks whether all platform and PCI MSI
>>>>>>>>>> domains implement IRQ remapping. This is useful to understand
>>>>>>>>>> whether VFIO passthrough is safe with respect to interrupts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On ARM typically an MSI controller can sit downstream to the
>>>>>>>>>> IOMMU without preventing VFIO passthrough.
>>>>>>>>>> As such any assigned device can write into the MSI doorbell.
>>>>>>>>>> In case the MSI controller implements IRQ remapping, assigned
>>>>>>>>>> devices will not be able to trigger interrupts towards the
>>>>>>>>>> host. On the contrary, the assignment must be emphasized as
>>>>>>>>>> unsafe with respect to interrupts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> v4 -> v5:
>>>>>>>>>> - Handle DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI domains
>>>>>>>>>> - Check parents
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>  include/linux/irqdomain.h |  1 +
>>>>>>>>>>  kernel/irq/irqdomain.c    | 41
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>  2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>>>>> b/include/linux/irqdomain.h index ab017b2..281a40f 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ struct irq_domain
>> *irq_domain_add_legacy(struct device_node *of_node,
>>>>>>>>>>  					 void *host_data);
>>>>>>>>>>  extern struct irq_domain *irq_find_matching_fwspec(struct
>> irq_fwspec *fwspec,
>>>>>>>>>>  						   enum
>> irq_domain_bus_token bus_token);
>>>>>>>>>> +extern bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void);
>>>>>>>>>>  extern void irq_set_default_host(struct irq_domain *host);
>>>>>>>>>> extern int irq_domain_alloc_descs(int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs,
>>>>>>>>>>  				  irq_hw_number_t hwirq, int node,
>> diff --git
>>>>>>>>>> a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c index
>>>>>>>>>> 8c0a0ae..700caea 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -278,6 +278,47 @@ struct irq_domain
>>>>>>>>>> *irq_find_matching_fwspec(struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
>>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_find_matching_fwspec);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  /**
>>>>>>>>>> + * irq_domain_is_msi_remap - Check if @domain or any parent
>>>>>>>>>> + * has MSI remapping support
>>>>>>>>>> + * @domain: domain pointer
>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>> +static bool irq_domain_is_msi_remap(struct irq_domain
>> *domain)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> +	struct irq_domain *h = domain;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +	for (; h; h = h->parent) {
>>>>>>>>>> +		if (h->flags & IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP)
>>>>>>>>>> +			return true;
>>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>>> +	return false;
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>> + * irq_domain_check_msi_remap() - Checks whether all MSI
>>>>>>>>>> + * irq domains implement IRQ remapping  */ bool
>>>>>>>>>> +irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void) {
>>>>>>>>>> +	struct irq_domain *h;
>>>>>>>>>> +	bool ret = true;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +	mutex_lock(&irq_domain_mutex);
>>>>>>>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(h, &irq_domain_list, link) {
>>>>>>>>>> +		if (((h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI) ||
>>>>>>>>>> +		     (h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI)
>> ||
>>>>>>>>>> +		     (h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI))
>> &&
>>>>>>>>>> +		     !irq_domain_is_msi_remap(h)) {
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI) and co looks quite
>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>> bus_token is not a bitmap, and DOMAIN_BUS_* not a single bit
>>>>>>>>> value (see enum irq_domain_bus_token). Surely this should read
>>>>>>>>> (h->bus_token == DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI).
>>>>>>>> Oh I did not notice that. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any other comments on the irqdomain side? Do you think the
>>>>>>>> current approach consisting in looking at those bus tokens and
>>>>>>>> their parents looks good?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be completely honest, I don't like it much, as having to
>>>>>>> enumerate all the bus types can come up with could become quite a
>>>>>>> burden in the long run. I'd rather be able to identify MSI capable
>>>>>>> domains by construction. I came up with the following approach (fully
>> untested):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>> index 281a40f..7779796 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
>>>>>>> @@ -183,8 +183,11 @@ enum {
>>>>>>>  	/* Irq domain is an IPI domain with single virq */
>>>>>>>  	IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_IPI_SINGLE	= (1 << 3),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	/* Irq domain implements MSIs */
>>>>>>> +	IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI		= (1 << 4),
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>  	/* Irq domain is MSI remapping capable */
>>>>>>> -	IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP	= (1 << 4),
>>>>>>> +	IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP	= (1 << 5),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  	/*
>>>>>>>  	 * Flags starting from IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_NONCORE are reserved
>> @@
>>>>>>> -450,6 +453,11 @@ static inline bool
>>>>>>> irq_domain_is_ipi_single(struct irq_domain *domain)  {
>>>>>>>  	return domain->flags & IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_IPI_SINGLE;  }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static inline bool irq_domain_is_msi(struct irq_domain *domain) {
>>>>>>> +	return domain->flags & IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI; }
>>>>>>>  #else	/* CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY */
>>>>>>>  static inline void irq_domain_activate_irq(struct irq_data *data)
>>>>>>> { }  static inline void irq_domain_deactivate_irq(struct irq_data
>>>>>>> *data) { } @@ -481,6 +489,11 @@ static inline bool
>>>>>>> irq_domain_is_ipi_single(struct irq_domain *domain)  {
>>>>>>>  	return false;
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static inline bool irq_domain_is_msi(struct irq_domain *domain) {
>>>>>>> +	return false;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>  #endif	/* CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  #else /* CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN */
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c index
>>>>>>> 700caea..33b6921 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>>>>>>> @@ -304,10 +304,7 @@ bool irq_domain_check_msi_remap(void)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  	mutex_lock(&irq_domain_mutex);
>>>>>>>  	list_for_each_entry(h, &irq_domain_list, link) {
>>>>>>> -		if (((h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI) ||
>>>>>>> -		     (h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI)
>> ||
>>>>>>> -		     (h->bus_token & DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI))
>> &&
>>>>>>> -		     !irq_domain_is_msi_remap(h)) {
>>>>>>> +		if (irq_domain_is_msi(h) &&
>> !irq_domain_is_msi_remap(h)) {
>>>>>>>  			ret = false;
>>>>>>>  			goto out;
>>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/msi.c b/kernel/irq/msi.c index
>>>>>>> ee23006..b637263 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/irq/msi.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/irq/msi.c
>>>>>>> @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ struct irq_domain
>> *msi_create_irq_domain(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>>>>>>>  	if (info->flags & MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS)
>>>>>>>  		msi_domain_update_chip_ops(info);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -	return irq_domain_create_hierarchy(parent, 0, 0, fwnode,
>>>>>>> +	return irq_domain_create_hierarchy(parent,
>> IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI,
>>>>>>> +0, fwnode,
>>>>>>>  					   &msi_domain_ops, info);
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't we need to set the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI flag in
>>>>>> platform_msi_create_device_domain too (drivers/base/platform-
>> msi.c)?
>>>> was mentioning platform_msi_create_*device*_domain.
>>>> it calls irq_domain_create_hierarchy and looks to be MSI irq domain
>>>> related. But I don't have a full understanding of the whole irq
>>>> domain hierarchy.
>>>
>>> Ah, sorry - I blame the ARM coffee.
>>>
>>> This function builds a domain for a single device on top of the MSI
>>> domain that has been already created (see the dev->msi_domain passed
>>> to irq_domain_create_hierarchy). The structure looks like this:
>>>
>>> device-domain -> platform MSI domain -> HW MSI domain -> whatever
>>>
>>> So what we're *really* interested in is the platform MSI domain, which
>>> is going to carry the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI flag. The device-domain only
>>> describes a portion of it, and can safely be ignored.
>>>
>>> In the end, what matters for this patch is that we can prove that from
>>> any domain carrying the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI flag, we can find a
>> domain
>>> carrying the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP flag. If that property holds,
>>> we're safe. Otherwise, we disable the Guest MSI feature.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?
>> Yes it makes sense. Thank you for the explanation!
> 
> If I understood correctly then the domain hierarchy is 
> 
>  -> "gic-irq-domain"
> 	 -> "gic-its-irq-domain"
> 		-> "platform-msi-domain"
> 		-> "pci-msi-domain"
> 		->  "fsl-mc-msi-domain"
> 
> "gic-its-irq-domain" carries IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP
> 
> So we need to look for the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP flag in
> "gic-its-irq-domain" when doing safety check for
> "platform/pci/fsl-mc"-msi-irqdomain,  is this what you mentioned?
> 
> Can we can pass this flags from "gic-its-irq-domain" to
> "platform/pci/fsl-mc"-msi-irqdomain during domain creation?

No, that's a very bad idea. It is not that domain that provides the
isolation, as it merely provides a software abstraction for a bus. On
the other hand, the underlying domain represents the HW that does
provide such isolation. Only that domain can claim that isolation will
be enforced.

So we only set the REMAP flag on the ITS domain, and place the MSI flag
on the top level MSI domains. And if we can prove that *all* MSI domains
have a parent implementing remapping, we're safe. Any other
configuration is unsafe.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists