linux-kernel - Re: A problem of Intel IOMMU hardware ？

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, 18 Mar 2021 09:46:24 -0700
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <longpeng2@...wei.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        chenjiashang <chenjiashang@...wei.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: A problem of Intel IOMMU hardware ？



> On Mar 18, 2021, at 2:25 AM, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) <longpeng2@...wei.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@...el.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:56 PM
>> To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
>> <longpeng2@...wei.com>; Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
>> Cc: chenjiashang <chenjiashang@...wei.com>; David Woodhouse
>> <dwmw2@...radead.org>; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; LKML
>> <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; alex.williamson@...hat.com; Gonglei (Arei)
>> <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>; will@...nel.org
>> Subject: RE: A problem of Intel IOMMU hardware ？
>> 
>>> From: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
>>> <longpeng2@...wei.com>
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@...el.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:27 PM
>>>> To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
>>>> <longpeng2@...wei.com>; Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
>>>> Cc: chenjiashang <chenjiashang@...wei.com>; David Woodhouse
>>>> <dwmw2@...radead.org>; iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; LKML
>>>> <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; alex.williamson@...hat.com; Gonglei
>>> (Arei)
>>>> <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>; will@...nel.org
>>>> Subject: RE: A problem of Intel IOMMU hardware ？
>>>> 
>>>>> From: iommu <iommu-bounces@...ts.linux-foundation.org> On Behalf
>>>>> Of Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Consider ensuring that the problem is not somehow related to
>>>>>> queued invalidations. Try to use __iommu_flush_iotlb() instead
>>>>>> of
>>>> qi_flush_iotlb().
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I tried to force to use __iommu_flush_iotlb(), but maybe something
>>>>> wrong, the system crashed, so I prefer to lower the priority of
>>>>> this
>>> operation.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The VT-d spec clearly says that register-based invalidation can be
>>>> used only
>>> when
>>>> queued-invalidations are not enabled. Intel-IOMMU driver doesn't
>>>> provide
>>> an
>>>> option to disable queued-invalidation though, when the hardware is
>>> capable. If you
>>>> really want to try, tweak the code in intel_iommu_init_qi.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>> 
>>> Thanks to point out this. Do you have any ideas about this problem ? I
>>> tried to descript the problem much clear in my reply to Alex, hope you
>>> could have a look if you're interested.
>>> 
>> 
>> btw I saw you used 4.18 kernel in this test. What about latest kernel?
>> 
> 
> Not test yet. It's hard to upgrade kernel in our environment.
> 
>> Also one way to separate sw/hw bug is to trace the low level interface (e.g.,
>> qi_flush_iotlb) which actually sends invalidation descriptors to the IOMMU
>> hardware. Check the window between b) and c) and see whether the software does
>> the right thing as expected there.
>> 
> 
> We add some log in iommu driver these days, the software seems fine. But we
> didn't look inside the qi_submit_sync yet, I'll try it tonight.

So here is my guess:

Intel probably used as a basis for the IOTLB an implementation of
some other (regular) TLB design.

Intel SDM says regarding TLBs (4.10.4.2 “Recommended Invalidation”):

"Software wishing to prevent this uncertainty should not write to
a paging-structure entry in a way that would change, for any linear
address, both the page size and either the page frame, access rights,
or other attributes.”


Now the aforementioned uncertainty is a bit different (multiple
*valid* translations of a single address). Yet, perhaps this is
yet another thing that might happen.

From a brief look on the handling of MMU (not IOMMU) hugepages
in Linux, indeed the PMD is first cleared and flushed before a
new valid PMD is set. This is possible for MMUs since they
allow the software to handle spurious page-faults gracefully.
This is not the case for the IOMMU though (without PRI).

Not sure this explains everything though. If that is the problem,
then during a mapping that changes page-sizes, a TLB flush is
needed, similarly to the one Longpeng did manually.



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)