linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: Add module parameter to set msi iova address

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 09:21:46 +0200
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: Add module parameter to set msi iova
 address

Hi,

On 5/27/20 7:30 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-05-27 17:03, Srinath Mannam wrote:
>> This patch gives the provision to change default value of MSI IOVA base
>> to platform's suitable IOVA using module parameter. The present
>> hardcoded MSI IOVA base may not be the accessible IOVA ranges of
>> platform.
> 
> That in itself doesn't seem entirely unreasonable; IIRC the current
> address is just an arbitrary choice to fit nicely into Qemu's memory
> map,
correct
 and there was always the possibility that it wouldn't suit everything.

Indeed I also recently had this case of PCI host bridge collision with
the SW MSI reserved window - maybe that's the same ;-) -.
> 
>> Since commit aadad097cd46 ("iommu/dma: Reserve IOVA for PCIe inaccessible
>> DMA address"), inaccessible IOVA address ranges parsed from dma-ranges
>> property are reserved.
> 
> That, however, doesn't seem to fit here; iommu-dma maps MSI doorbells
> dynamically, so they aren't affected by reserved regions any more than
> regular DMA pages are. In fact, it explicitly ignores the software MSI
> region, since as the comment says, it *is* the software that manages those.
> 
> The MSI_IOVA_BASE region exists for VFIO, precisely because in that case
> the kernel *doesn't* control the address space, but still needs some way
> to steal a bit of it for MSIs that the guest doesn't necessarily know
> about, and give userspace a fighting chance of knowing what it's taken.
> I think at the time we discussed the idea of adding something to the
> VFIO uapi such that userspace could move this around if it wanted or
> needed to, but decided we could live without that initially.

Yes indeed ;-)

 Perhaps now
> the time has come?

Do you mean you would welcome a VFIO based approach or would a driver
parameter be sufficient?

Thanks

Eric


> 
> Robin.
> 
>> If any platform has the limitaion to access default MSI IOVA, then it can
>> be changed using "arm-smmu.msi_iova_base=0xa0000000" command line
>> argument.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@...adcom.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 4f1a350..5e59c9d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -72,6 +72,9 @@ static bool disable_bypass =
>>   module_param(disable_bypass, bool, S_IRUGO);
>>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>>       "Disable bypass streams such that incoming transactions from
>> devices that are not attached to an iommu domain will report an abort
>> back to the device and will not be allowed to pass through the SMMU.");
>> +static unsigned long msi_iova_base = MSI_IOVA_BASE;
>> +module_param(msi_iova_base, ulong, S_IRUGO);
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(msi_iova_base, "msi iova base address.");
>>     struct arm_smmu_s2cr {
>>       struct iommu_group        *group;
>> @@ -1566,7 +1569,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_get_resv_regions(struct
>> device *dev,
>>       struct iommu_resv_region *region;
>>       int prot = IOMMU_WRITE | IOMMU_NOEXEC | IOMMU_MMIO;
>>   -    region = iommu_alloc_resv_region(MSI_IOVA_BASE, MSI_IOVA_LENGTH,
>> +    region = iommu_alloc_resv_region(msi_iova_base, MSI_IOVA_LENGTH,
>>                        prot, IOMMU_RESV_SW_MSI);
>>       if (!region)
>>           return;
>>
>