[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <467d5b58-b70c-1c45-4130-76b6e18c05af@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:10:07 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: pasic@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
mst@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: protvirt: virtio: Refuse device without IOMMU
On 2020/6/10 下午9:11, Pierre Morel wrote:
> Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and
> do not allow a the host to access all of its memory.
>
> Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU
> protected access.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> index 5730572b52cd..06ffbc96587a 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> @@ -986,6 +986,11 @@ static void virtio_ccw_set_status(struct virtio_device *vdev, u8 status)
> if (!ccw)
> return;
>
> + /* Protected Virtualisation guest needs IOMMU */
> + if (is_prot_virt_guest() &&
> + !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> + status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK;
> +
> /* Write the status to the host. */
> vcdev->dma_area->status = status;
> ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS;
I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw.
I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this as
well.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists