[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171028001907.7b8fa60d@t450s.home>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 00:19:07 +0200
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable SR-IOV instantiation through /sys file
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:50:43 +0000
"Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang@...el.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@...hat.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:07 PM
> > To: Wang, Liang-min <liang-min.wang@...el.com>
> > Cc: Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > bhelgaas@...gle.com; Duyck, Alexander H <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable SR-IOV instantiation through /sys file
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:49:15 +0000
> > "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Just like any PCIe devices that supports SR-IOV. There are restrictions set for
> > VF. Also, there is a concept of trust VF now available for PF to manage certain
> > features that only selected VF could exercise. Are you saying all the devices
> > supporting SR-IOV all have security issue?
> >
> > Here's a simple example, most SR-IOV capable NICs, including those from
> > Intel, require the PF interface to be up in order to route traffic from
> > the VF. If the user controls the PF interface and VFs are used
> > elsewhere in the host, the PF driver in userspace can induce a denial
> > of service on the VFs. That doesn't even take into account that VFs
> > might be in separate IOMMU groups from the PF and therefore not
> > isolated from the host like the PF and that the PF driver can
> > potentially manipulate the VF, possibly performing DMA on behalf of the
> > PF. VFs are only considered secure today because the PF is managed by
> > a driver in the host kernel. Allowing simple enablement of VFs for a
> > user owned PF seems inherently insecure to me. Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
>
> Firstly, the concern is on user-space PF driver based upon vfio-pci, this patch doesn't
> change PF behavior so with/without this patch, the concern remains the same.
This patch enables SR-IOV to be enabled via the host on a user-owned
PF, how is this not a change in behavior?
> Secondly, the security concern (including denial of service) in general is to ensure trust
> entity to be trust-worthy. No matter the PF driver is in kernel-space or in user- space,
> necessary mechanism needs to be enforced on the device driver to ensure it's
> trusted worthy. For example, ixgbe kernel driver introduces a Tx hang detection
> to avoid driver stays in a bad state. Therefore, it's the responsibility of user-space
> driver function, which based upon vfio-pci, to enforce necessary mechanism to ensure
> its trust-ness. That's a given.
Userspace is not trustworthy, therefore the host kernel cannot place
responsibility on a userspace driver for anything, including the
behavior of VFs. I'm sorry, but it's a NAK unless you intend to
follow-up with some proposal to quarantine the VFs enabled by the
userspace PF driver. Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists