linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on

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:   Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:50:59 -0700
From:   Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To:     "Sun, Ning" <ning.sun@...el.com>
CC:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@...el.com>,
        "hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>,
        "srihan@...com" <srihan@...com>,
        "Eydelberg, Alex" <alex.eydelberg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on

Hi Joerg,

Is Ning's answer sufficient to justify merging the patch?

Thanks,
Shaohua


On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:28:46PM +0000, Sun, Ning wrote:
> From tboot perspective, it is ok to add the option "tboot_noforce" to Linux kernel Intel_iommu parameter for those performance hungry tboot users, so long as the users are aware of the security implication behind of this option.
>  
> Thanks,
> -ning
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shaohua Li [mailto:shli@...com] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:31 PM
> To: Sun, Ning <ning.sun@...el.com>
> Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Wei, Gang <gang.wei@...el.com>; hpa@...ux.intel.com; mingo@...nel.org; kernel-team@...com; srihan@...com; Eydelberg, Alex <alex.eydelberg@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on
> 
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:49:52PM +0000, Sun, Ning wrote:
> > Hi Shaohua,
> > 
> > One question, did you still see the network performance penalty when Linux kernel cmdline intel_iommu was set to off ( intel_iommu=off) ?
> 
> the boot parameter has no effect, it runs very early and set dmar_disable=1.
> The tboot code (tboot_force_iommu) runs later and force dmar_disabled = 0.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
>  
> > Thanks,
> > -ning
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:jroedel@...e.de]
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 3:09 AM
> > To: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Wei, Gang <gang.wei@...el.com>; 
> > hpa@...ux.intel.com; mingo@...nel.org; kernel-team@...com; Sun, Ning 
> > <ning.sun@...el.com>; srihan@...com; Eydelberg, Alex 
> > <alex.eydelberg@...el.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/tboot: add an option to disable iommu force on
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:50:55AM -0400, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:49:00AM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > > > Hi Shaohua,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > > IOMMU harms performance signficantly when we run very fast 
> > > > > > networking workloads. This is a limitation in hardware based 
> > > > > > on our observation, so we'd like to disable the IOMMU force 
> > > > > > on, but we do want to use TBOOT and we can sacrifice the DMA 
> > > > > > security bought by IOMMU. I must admit I know nothing about 
> > > > > > TBOOT, but TBOOT guys (cc-ed) think not eabling IOMMU is totally ok.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can you elaborate a bit more on the setup where the IOMMU still 
> > > > > harms network performance? With the recent scalability 
> > > > > improvements I measured only a minimal impact on 10GBit networking.
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > It's 40GB networking doing XDP test. Software overhead is almost 
> > > > unaware, but it's the IOTLB miss (based on our analysis) which 
> > > > kills the performance. We observed the same performance issue even 
> > > > with software passthrough (identity mapping), only the hardware 
> > > > passthrough survives. The pps with iommu (with software passthrough) is only about ~30% of that without it.
> > > 
> > > Any update on this?
> > 
> > An explicit Ack from the tboot guys would be good to have.
> > 
> > 
> > 	Joerg
> >