linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: move force_dma_unencrypted() to mem

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: <20200221190702.68fd57fc.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:07:02 +0100
From:   Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: move force_dma_unencrypted() to mem_encrypt.h

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:48:15 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:06:39PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:27:27 +1100
> > David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:31:35PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:23:20PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > >From a users perspective it makes absolutely perfect sense to use the
> > > > > bounce buffers when they are NEEDED. 
> > > > > Forcing the user to specify iommu_platform just because you need bounce buffers
> > > > > really feels wrong. And obviously we have a severe performance issue
> > > > > because of the indirections.
> > > > 
> > > > The point is that the user should not have to specify iommu_platform.
> > > > We need to make sure any new hypervisor (especially one that might require
> > > > bounce buffering) always sets it,
> > > 
> > > So, I have draft qemu patches which enable iommu_platform by default.
> > > But that's really because of other problems with !iommu_platform, not
> > > anything to do with bounce buffering or secure VMs.
> > > 
> > > The thing is that the hypervisor *doesn't* require bounce buffering.
> > > In the POWER (and maybe s390 as well) models for Secure VMs, it's the
> > > *guest*'s choice to enter secure mode, so the hypervisor has no reason
> > > to know whether the guest needs bounce buffering.  As far as the
> > > hypervisor and qemu are concerned that's a guest internal detail, it
> > > just expects to get addresses it can access whether those are GPAs
> > > (iommu_platform=off) or IOVAs (iommu_platform=on).
> > 
> > I very much agree!
> > 
> > > 
> > > > as was a rather bogus legacy hack
> > > 
> > > It was certainly a bad idea, but it was a bad idea that went into a
> > > public spec and has been widely deployed for many years.  We can't
> > > just pretend it didn't happen and move on.
> > > 
> > > Turning iommu_platform=on by default breaks old guests, some of which
> > > we still care about.  We can't (automatically) do it only for guests
> > > that need bounce buffering, because the hypervisor doesn't know that
> > > ahead of time.
> > 
> > Turning iommu_platform=on for virtio-ccw makes no sense whatsover,
> > because for CCW I/O there is no such thing as IOMMU and the addresses
> > are always physical addresses.
> 
> Fix the name then. The spec calls is ACCESS_PLATFORM now, which
> makes much more sense.

I don't quite get it. Sorry. Maybe I will revisit this later.

Regards,
Halil

> 
> > > 
> > > > that isn't extensibe for cases that for example require bounce buffering.
> > > 
> > > In fact bounce buffering isn't really the issue from the hypervisor
> > > (or spec's) point of view.  It's the fact that not all of guest memory
> > > is accessible to the hypervisor.  Bounce buffering is just one way the
> > > guest might deal with that.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Halil
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>