linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS support for the idxd driver.

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: <AADFC41AFE54684AB9EE6CBC0274A5D19D8C5486@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 05:18:59 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "megha.dey@...ux.intel.com" <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>,
        "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Add VFIO mediated device support and IMS
 support for the idxd driver.

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 2:12 AM
> 
> > > > idxd is just the first device that supports Scalable IOV. We have a
> > > > lot more coming later, in different types. Then putting such
> > > > emulation in user space means that Qemu needs to support all those
> > > > vendor specific interfaces for every new device which supports
> > >
> > > It would be very sad to see an endless amount of device emulation code
> > > crammed into the kernel. Userspace is where device emulation is
> > > supposed to live. For security
> >
> > I think providing an unified abstraction to userspace is also important,
> > which is what VFIO provides today. The merit of using one set of VFIO
> > API to manage all kinds of mediated devices and VF devices is a major
> > gain. Instead, inventing a new vDPA-like interface for every Scalable-IOV
> > or equivalent device is just overkill and doesn't scale. Also the actual
> > emulation code in idxd driver is actually small, if putting aside the PCI
> > config space part for which I already explained most logic could be shared
> > between mdev device drivers.
> 
> If it was just config space you might have an argument, VFIO already
> does some config space mangling, but emulating BAR space is out of
> scope of VFIO, IMHO.

out of scope of vfio-pci, but in scope of vfio-mdev. btw I feel that most
of your objections are actually related to the general idea of vfio-mdev.
Scalable IOV just uses PASID to harden DMA isolation in mediated
pass-through usage which vfio-mdev enables. Then are you just opposing
the whole vfio-mdev? If not, I'm curious about the criteria in your mind 
about when using vfio-mdev is good...

> 
> I also think it is disingenuous to pretend this is similar to
> SR-IOV. SR-IOV is self contained and the BAR does not require
> emulation. What you have here sounds like it is just an ordinary

technically Scalable IOV is definitely different from SR-IOV. It's 
simpler in hardware. And we're not emulating SR-IOV. The point
is just in usage-wise we want to present a consistent user 
experience just like passing through a PCI endpoint (PF or VF) device
through vfio eco-system, including various userspace VMMs (Qemu,
firecracker, rust-vmm, etc.), middleware (Libvirt), and higher level 
management stacks. 

> multi-queue device with the ability to PASID tag queues for IOMMU
> handling. This is absolutely not SRIOV - it is much closer to VDPA,
> which isn't using mdev.
> 
> Further, I disagree with your assessment that this doesn't scale. You
> already said you plan a normal user interface for idxd, so instead of
> having a single sane user interface (ala VDPA) idxd now needs *two*. If
> this is the general pattern of things to come, it is a bad path.
> 
> The only thing we get out of this is someone doesn't have to write a
> idxd emulation driver in qemu, instead they have to write it in the
> kernel. I don't see how that is a win for the ecosystem.
> 

No. The clear win is on leveraging classic VFIO iommu and its eco-system
as explained above.

Thanks
Kevin