linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] virtio: Use DMA MAP API for devices without an IOMMU

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: <002f153f-452d-f64b-4fc7-7f3383b39162@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:47:10 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     robh@...nel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        aik@...abs.ru, jasowang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
        david@...son.dropbear.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio: Use DMA MAP API for devices without an IOMMU

On 04/15/2018 05:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:37:18PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>> implemented as DMA API which the virtio core understands. There is no
>>>> need for an IOMMU to be involved for the device representation in this
>>>> case IMHO.
>>>
>>> This whole virtio translation issue is a mess.  I think we need to
>>> switch it to the dma API, and then quirk the legacy case to always
>>> use the direct mapping inside the dma API.
>>
>> Fine with using a dma API always on the Linux side, but we do want to
>> special case virtio still at the arch and qemu side to have a "direct
>> mapping" mode. Not sure how (special flags on PCI devices) to avoid
>> actually going through an emulated IOMMU on the qemu side, because that
>> slows things down, esp. with vhost.
>>
>> IE, we can't I think just treat it the same as a physical device.
> 
> We should have treated it like a physical device from the start, but
> that device has unfortunately sailed.
> 
> But yes, we'll need a per-device quirk that says 'don't attach an
> iommu'.

How about doing it per platform basis as suggested in this RFC through
an arch specific callback. Because all the virtio devices in the given
platform would require and exercise this option (to avail bounce buffer
mechanism for secure guests as an example). So the flag basically is a
platform specific one not a device specific one.