linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] add non-strict mode support for arm-smmu-v3

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: <96cc25b9-b21f-6067-384d-f52e6b8b25e7@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 May 2018 21:49:22 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-mediatek <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
        Guozhu Li <liguozhu@...ilicon.com>,
        Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] add non-strict mode support for arm-smmu-v3

Hi Robin,

On 2018/5/31 19:24, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 31/05/18 08:42, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> In common, a IOMMU unmap operation follow the below steps:
>> 1. remove the mapping in page table of the specified iova range
>> 2. execute tlbi command to invalid the mapping which is cached in TLB
>> 3. wait for the above tlbi operation to be finished
>> 4. free the IOVA resource
>> 5. free the physical memory resource
>>
>> This maybe a problem when unmap is very frequently, the combination of tlbi
>> and wait operation will consume a lot of time. A feasible method is put off
>> tlbi and iova-free operation, when accumulating to a certain number or
>> reaching a specified time, execute only one tlbi_all command to clean up
>> TLB, then free the backup IOVAs. Mark as non-strict mode.
>>
>> But it must be noted that, although the mapping has already been removed in
>> the page table, it maybe still exist in TLB. And the freed physical memory
>> may also be reused for others. So a attacker can persistent access to memory
>> based on the just freed IOVA, to obtain sensible data or corrupt memory. So
>> the VFIO should always choose the strict mode.
>>
>> Some may consider put off physical memory free also, that will still follow
>> strict mode. But for the map_sg cases, the memory allocation is not controlled
>> by IOMMU APIs, so it is not enforceable.
>>
>> Fortunately, Intel and AMD have already applied the non-strict mode, and put
>> queue_iova() operation into the common file dma-iommu.c., and my work is based
>> on it. The difference is that arm-smmu-v3 driver will call IOMMU common APIs to
>> unmap, but Intel and AMD IOMMU drivers are not.
>>
>> Below is the performance data of strict vs non-strict for NVMe device:
>> Randomly Read  IOPS: 146K(strict) vs 573K(non-strict)
>> Randomly Write IOPS: 143K(strict) vs 513K(non-strict)
> 
> What hardware is this on? If it's SMMUv3 without MSIs (e.g. D05), then you'll still be using the rubbish globally-blocking sync implementation. If that is the case, I'd be very interested to see how much there is to gain from just improving that - I've had a patch kicking around for a while[1] (also on a rebased branch at [2]), but don't have the means for serious performance testing.

The hardware is the new D06 which the SMMU with MSIs,
it's not D05 :)

Thanks
Hanjun