linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for virito devices

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:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:03:03 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, robh@...nel.org,
        pawel.moll@....com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        aik@...abs.ru, jasowang@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
        "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
        david@...son.dropbear.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for
 virito devices

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 01:29:18PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 19:39 -0700, Ram Pai wrote:
> > 
> > However if the administrator
> > ignores/forgets/deliberatey-decides/is-constrained to NOT enable the
> > flag, virtio will not be able to pass control to the DMA ops associated
> > with the virtio devices. Which means, we have no opportunity to share
> > the I/O buffers with the hypervisor/qemu.
> > 
> > How do you suggest, we handle this case?
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself, let's just do the first pass which is
> to switch virtio over to always using the DMA API in the actual data
> flow code, with a hook at initialization time that replaces the DMA ops
> with some home cooked "direct" ops in the case where the IOMMU flag
> isn't set.

I'm not sure I understand all of the details, will have to
see the patch, but superficially it sounds good to me.

> This will be equivalent to what we have today but avoids having 2
> separate code path all over the driver.
> 
> Then a second stage, I think, is to replace this "hook" so that the
> architecture gets a say in the matter.
> 
> Basically, something like:
> 
> 	arch_virtio_update_dma_ops(pci_dev, qemu_direct_mode).
> 
> IE, virtio would tell the arch whether the "other side" is in fact QEMU
> in a mode that bypasses the IOMMU and is cache coherent with the guest.
> This is our legacy "qemu special" mode. If the performance is
> sufficient we may want to deprecate it over time and have qemu enable
> the iommu by default but we still need it.
> 
> A weak implementation of the above will be provied that just puts in
> the direct ops when qemu_direct_mode is set, and thus provides today's
> behaviour on any arch that doesn't override it. If the flag is not set,
> the ops are left to whatever the arch PCI layer already set.
> 
> This will provide the opportunity for architectures that want to do
> something special, such as in our case, when we want to force even the
> "qemu_direct_mode" to go via bounce buffers, to put our own ops in
> there, while retaining the legacy behaviour otherwise.
> 
> It also means that the "gunk" is entirely localized in that one
> function, the rest of virtio just uses the DMA API normally.
> 
> Christoph, are you actually hacking "stage 1" above already or should
> we produce patches ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.