| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:15:02 +0000
From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>,
"Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@...el.com>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 2/8] vfio/type1: Add vfio_iommu_type1 parameter for
quota tuning
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:59 AM
> To: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] vfio/type1: Add vfio_iommu_type1 parameter for quota
> tuning
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:44:08 +0000
> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:27 PM
> > >
> > > > From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:20 PM
> > > > To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>; alex.williamson@...hat.com;
> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 2/8] vfio/type1: Add vfio_iommu_type1 parameter
> > > for quota
> > > > tuning
> > > >
> > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:53 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:41 PM
> > > > > > To: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>; alex.williamson@...hat.com;
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 2/8] vfio/type1: Add vfio_iommu_type1
> > > > > > parameter
> > > > > for quota
> > > > > > tuning
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 8:32 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch adds a module option to make the PASID quota tunable by
> > > > > > > administrator.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TODO: needs to think more on how to make the tuning to be per-
> > > process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Previous discussions:
> > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11209429/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>
> > > > > > > CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > > > > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > > > > > include/linux/vfio.h | 3 ++-
> > > > > > > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c index
> > > > > > > d13b483..020a792 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> > > > > > > @@ -2217,13 +2217,19 @@ struct vfio_mm
> > > > > *vfio_mm_get_from_task(struct
> > > > > > > task_struct *task)
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_mm_get_from_task);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -int vfio_mm_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int min, int max)
> > > > > > > +int vfio_mm_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int quota, int min,
> > > > > > > +int
> > > > > max)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > ioasid_t pasid;
> > > > > > > int ret = -ENOSPC;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mutex_lock(&vmm->pasid_lock);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + /* update quota as it is tunable by admin */
> > > > > > > + if (vmm->pasid_quota != quota) {
> > > > > > > + vmm->pasid_quota = quota;
> > > > > > > + ioasid_adjust_set(vmm->ioasid_sid, quota);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a bit weird to have quota adjusted in the alloc path, since the
> > > > > > latter
> > > > > might
> > > > > > be initiated by non-privileged users. Why not doing the simple math
> > > > > > in
> > > > > vfio_
> > > > > > create_mm to set the quota when the ioasid set is created? even in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > future
> > > > > > you may allow per-process quota setting, that should come from
> > > > > > separate privileged path instead of thru alloc..
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason is the kernel parameter modification has no event which can
> > > > > be used to adjust the quota. So I chose to adjust it in pasid_alloc
> > > > > path. If it's not good, how about adding one more IOCTL to let user-
> > > > > space trigger a quota adjustment event? Then even non-privileged user
> > > > > could trigger quota adjustment, the quota is actually controlled by
> > > > > privileged user. How about your opinion?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > why do you need an event to adjust? As I said, you can set the quota when
> > > the set is
> > > > created in vfio_create_mm...
> > >
> > > oh, it's to support runtime adjustments. I guess it may be helpful to let
> > > per-VM quota tunable even the VM is running. If just set the quota in
> > > vfio_create_mm(), it is not able to adjust at runtime.
> > >
> >
> > ok, I didn't note the module parameter was granted with a write permission.
> > However there is a further problem. We cannot support PASID reclaim now.
> > What about the admin sets a quota smaller than previous value while some
> > IOASID sets already exceed the new quota? I'm not sure how to fail a runtime
> > module parameter change due to that situation. possibly a normal sysfs
> > node better suites the runtime change requirement...
>
> Yep, making this runtime adjustable seems a bit unpredictable and racy,
> and it's not clear to me how a user is going to jump in at just the
> right time for a user and adjust the limit. I'd probably go for a
> simple non-runtime adjustable module option. It's a safety net at this
> point anyway afaict. Thanks,
thanks, I can do the changes.
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists