linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix virtio-blk issue with SWIOTLB

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, 14 Jan 2019 21:19:35 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jfehlig@...e.com,
        jon.grimm@....com, brijesh.singh@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix virtio-blk issue with SWIOTLB

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 01:20:45PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I don't think so - the issue is really that DMA API does not yet handle
> the SEV case 100% correctly. I suspect passthrough devices would have
> the same issue.

The DMA API handles the SEV case perfectly.  Its just that virtio_blk
supports huge segments that virtio does not generally support, but that
is not related to SEV in any way.

> In fact whoever sets IOMMU_PLATFORM is completely unaffected by
> Christoph's pet peeve.

No, the above happens only when we set IOMMU_PLATFORM.

> Christoph is saying that !IOMMU_PLATFORM devices should hide the
> compatibility code in a special per-device DMA API implementation.
> Which would be fine especially if we can manage not to introduce a bunch
> of indirect calls all over the place and hurt performance.  It's just
> that the benefit is unlikely to be big (e.g. we can't also get rid of
> the virtio specific memory barriers) so no one was motivated enough to
> work on it.

No.  The problem is that we still haven't fully specified what
IOMMU_PLATFORM and !IOMMU_PLATFORM actually mean.  Your
"ACCESS_PLATFORM/ORDER_PLATFORM" commit in the virtio-spec repo
improves it a little bit, but it is still far from enough.

As a start VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM and VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
absolutely MUST be set for hardware implementations.  Otherwise said
hardware has no chance of working on anything but the most x86-like
systems.

Second software implementations SHOULD set VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM,
because otherwise we can't add proper handling for things like SEV or
the IBM "secure hypervisor" thing.

Last but not least a lot of wording outside the area describing these
flags really needs some major updates in terms of DMA access.