[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004281556180.29217@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...eaurora.org>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, jan.kiszka@...mens.com, will@...nel.org,
stefano.stabellini@...inx.com, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, tsoni@...eaurora.org,
pratikp@...eaurora.org, christoffer.dall@....com,
alex.bennee@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio: Add bounce DMA ops
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:19:52PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> [2020-04-28 12:17:57]:
> >
> > > Okay, but how is all this virtio specific? For example, why not allow
> > > separate swiotlbs for any type of device?
> > > For example, this might make sense if a given device is from a
> > > different, less trusted vendor.
> >
> > Is swiotlb commonly used for multiple devices that may be on different trust
> > boundaries (and not behind a hardware iommu)?
The trust boundary is not a good way of describing the scenario and I
think it leads to miscommunication.
A better way to describe the scenario would be that the device can only
DMA to/from a small reserved-memory region advertised on device tree.
Do we have other instances of devices that can only DMA to/from very
specific and non-configurable address ranges? If so, this series could
follow their example.
> Even a hardware iommu does not imply a 100% security from malicious
> hardware. First lots of people use iommu=pt for performance reasons.
> Second even without pt, unmaps are often batched, and sub-page buffers
> might be used for DMA, so we are not 100% protected at all times.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists