linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation APIs

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]

Message-ID: <BN6PR11MB4068C1A040FF61B4A9ABBD9BC37B9@BN6PR11MB4068.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:43:36 +0000
From:   "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Jean-Philippe Brucker" <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and allocation
 APIs

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:16 PM
> 
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:10:48PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:47 PM
> > [...]
> > > I'm worried Intel views the only use of PASID in a guest is with
> > > ENQCMD, but that is not consistent with the industry. We need to see
> > > normal nested PASID support with assigned PCI VFs.
> >
> > I'm not quire flow here. Intel also allows PASID usage in guest without
> > ENQCMD. e.g. Passthru a PF to guest, and use PASID on it without
> ENQCMD.
> 
> Then you need all the parts, the hypervisor calls from the vIOMMU, and
> you can't really use a vPASID.

This is a diagram shows the vSVA setup.

    .-------------.  .---------------------------.
    |   vIOMMU    |  | Guest process CR3, FL only|
    |             |  '---------------------------'
    .----------------/
    | PASID Entry |--- PASID cache flush -
    '-------------'                       |
    |             |                       V
    |             |                CR3 in GPA
    '-------------'
Guest
------| Shadow |--------------------------|--------
      v        v                          v
Host
    .-------------.  .----------------------.
    |   pIOMMU    |  | Bind FL for GVA-GPA  |
    |             |  '----------------------'
    .----------------/  |
    | PASID Entry |     V (Nested xlate)
    '----------------\.------------------------------.
    |             |   |SL for GPA-HPA, default domain|
    |             |   '------------------------------'
    '-------------'
Where:
 - FL = First level/stage one page tables
 - SL = Second level/stage two page tables

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210302203545.436623-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com/

> 
> I'm not sure how Intel intends to resolve all of this.
> 
> > > > - this per-ioasid SVA operations is not aligned with the native SVA
> usage
> > > >   model. Native SVA bind is per-device.
> > >
> > > Seems like that is an error in native SVA.
> > >
> > > SVA is a particular mode of the PASID's memory mapping table, it has
> > > nothing to do with a device.
> >
> > I think it still has relationship with device. This is determined by the
> > DMA remapping hierarchy in hardware. e.g. Intel VT-d, the DMA isolation
> is
> > enforced first in device granularity and then PASID granularity. SVA makes
> > usage of both PASID and device granularity isolation.
> 
> When the device driver authorizes a PASID the VT-d stuff should setup
> the isolation parameters for the give pci_device and PASID.

yes, both device and PASID is needed to setup VT-d stuff.

> Do not leak implementation details like this as uAPI. Authorization
> and memory map are distinct ideas with distinct interfaces. Do not mix
> them.

got you. Let's focus on the uAPI things here and leave implementation details
in RFC patches.

Thanks,
Yi Liu

> Jason