linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] PCI/ATS: Add PRI support for PCIe VF 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]

Message-ID: <20190819141500.GQ253360@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:15:00 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ashok.raj@...el.com, keith.busch@...el.com,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] PCI/ATS: Add PRI support for PCIe VF devices

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 03:39:03PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On 8/15/19 3:20 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Joerg, David, iommu list: because IOMMU drivers are the only
> > callers of pci_enable_pri() and pci_enable_pasid()]
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:06:01PM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > When IOMMU tries to enable Page Request Interface (PRI) for VF device
> > > in iommu_enable_dev_iotlb(), it always fails because PRI support for
> > > PCIe VF device is currently broken. Current implementation expects
> > > the given PCIe device (PF & VF) to implement PRI capability before
> > > enabling the PRI support. But this assumption is incorrect. As per PCIe
> > > spec r4.0, sec 9.3.7.11, all VFs associated with PF can only use the
> > > PRI of the PF and not implement it. Hence we need to create exception
> > > for handling the PRI support for PCIe VF device.
> > > 
> > > Also, since PRI is a shared resource between PF/VF, following rules
> > > should apply.
> > > 
> > > 1. Use proper locking before accessing/modifying PF resources in VF
> > >     PRI enable/disable call.
> > > 2. Use reference count logic to track the usage of PRI resource.
> > > 3. Disable PRI only if the PRI reference count (pri_ref_cnt) is zero.

> > Wait, why do we need this at all?  I agree the spec says VFs may not
> > implement PRI or PASID capabilities and that VFs use the PRI and
> > PASID of the PF.
> > 
> > But why do we need to support pci_enable_pri() and pci_enable_pasid()
> > for VFs?  There's nothing interesting we can *do* in the VF, and
> > passing it off to the PF adds all this locking mess.  For VFs, can we
> > just make them do nothing or return -EINVAL?  What functionality would
> > we be missing if we did that?
> 
> Currently PRI/PASID capabilities are not enabled by default. IOMMU can
> enable PRI/PASID for VF first (and not enable it for PF). In this case,
> doing nothing for VF device will break the functionality.

What is the path where we can enable PRI/PASID for VF but not for the
PF?  The call chains leading to pci_enable_pri() go through the
iommu_ops.add_device interface, which makes me think this is part of
the device enumeration done by the PCI core, and in that case I would
think this it should be done for the PF before VFs.  But maybe this
path isn't exercised until a driver does a DMA map or something
similar?

Bjorn