linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu: Relax ACS requirement for RCiEP 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200526183457.GC36356@otc-nc-03>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 11:34:57 -0700
From:   "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Darrel Goeddel <DGoeddel@...cepoint.com>,
        Mark Scott <mscott@...cepoint.com>,
        Romil Sharma <rsharma@...cepoint.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Relax ACS requirement for RCiEP devices.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:26:54PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't think the language in the spec is anything sufficient to handle
> > > RCiEP uniquely.  We've previously rejected kernel command line opt-outs
> > > for ACS, and the extent to which those patches still float around the
> > > user community and are blindly used to separate IOMMU groups are a
> > > testament to the failure of this approach.  Users do not have a basis
> > > for enabling this sort of opt-out.  The benefit is obvious in the IOMMU
> > > grouping, but the risk is entirely unknown.  A kconfig option is even
> > > worse as that means if you consume a downstream kernel, the downstream
> > > maintainers might have decided universally that isolation is less
> > > important than functionality.  
> > 
> > We discussed this internally, and Intel vt-d spec does spell out clearly 
> > in Section 3.16 Root-Complex Peer to Peer Considerations. The spec clearly
> > calls out that all p2p must be done on translated addresses and therefore
> > must go through the IOMMU.
> > 
> > I suppose they should also have some similar platform gauranteed behavior
> > for RCiEP's or MFD's *Must* behave as follows. The language is strict and
> > when IOMMU is enabled in the platform, everything is sent up north to the
> > IOMMU agent.
> > 
> > 3.16 Root-Complex Peer to Peer Considerations
> > When DMA remapping is enabled, peer-to-peer requests through the
> > Root-Complex must be handled
> > as follows:
> > • The input address in the request is translated (through first-level,
> >   second-level or nested translation) to a host physical address (HPA).
> >   The address decoding for peer addresses must be done only on the 
> >   translated HPA. Hardware implementations are free to further limit 
> >   peer-to-peer accesses to specific host physical address regions 
> >   (or to completely disallow peer-forwarding of translated requests).
> > • Since address translation changes the contents (address field) of the PCI
> >   Express Transaction Layer Packet (TLP), for PCI Express peer-to-peer 
> >   requests with ECRC, the Root-Complex hardware must use the new ECRC 
> >   (re-computed with the translated address) if it decides to forward 
> >   the TLP as a peer request.
> > • Root-ports, and multi-function root-complex integrated endpoints, may
> >   support additional peerto-peer control features by supporting PCI Express
> >   Access Control Services (ACS) capability. Refer to ACS capability in 
> >   PCI Express specifications for details.
> 
> That sounds like it might be a reasonable basis for quirking all RCiEPs
> on VT-d platforms if Intel is willing to stand behind it.  Thanks,
> 

Sounds good.. that's what i hear from our platform teams. If there is a
violation it would be a bug in silicon.