linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <42f3733d-9f68-91b3-29f9-e88dd4495886@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:01:47 +0200
From:   Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        david@...son.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without
 IOMMU feature



On 2020-07-06 16:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:37:37 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2020-07-02 15:03, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-29 18:05, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:57:14 -0400
>>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>>> An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host
>>>>>> access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the
>>>>>> use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices
>>>>>> without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    arch/s390/mm/init.c     |  6 ++++++
>>>>>>    drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>    include/linux/virtio.h  |  2 ++
>>>>>>    3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>>>   
>>>>>> @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct
>>>>>> virtio_device *dev)
>>>>>>        if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
>>>>>>            return 0;
>>>>>> +    if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
>>>>>> +        !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
>>>>>> +        dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>>>>>> +             "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
>>>>>> +        return -ENODEV;
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>        virtio_add_status(dev, VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK);
>>>>>>        status = dev->config->get_status(dev);
>>>>>>        if (!(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK)) {
>>>>>
>>>>> Well don't you need to check it *before* VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, not after?
>>>>
>>>> But it's only available with VERSION_1 anyway, isn't it? So it probably
>>>> also needs to fail when this feature is needed if VERSION_1 has not been
>>>> negotiated, I think.
>>
>>
>> would be something like:
>>
>> -       if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
>> -               return 0;
>> +       if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
>> +               ret = arch_accept_virtio_features(dev);
>> +               if (ret)
>> +                       dev_warn(&dev->dev,
>> +                                "virtio: device must provide
>> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
>> +               return ret;
>> +       }
> 
> That looks wrong; I think we want to validate in all cases. What about:
> 
> ret = arch_accept_virtio_features(dev); // this can include checking for
>                                          // older or newer features
> if (ret)
> 	// assume that the arch callback moaned already
> 	return ret;
> 
> if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> 	return 0;
> 
> // do the virtio-1 only FEATURES_OK dance

hum, you are right, I was too focused on keeping my simple 
arch_accept_virtio_features() function unchanged.
It must be more general.

> 
>>
>>
>> just a thought on the function name:
>> It becomes more general than just IOMMU_PLATFORM related.
>>
>> What do you think of:
>>
>> arch_accept_virtio_features()
> 
> Or maybe arch_validate_virtio_features()?

OK validated.

Thanks,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen