Date:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:11:25 +1000
From:   David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
 allocation APIs

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:31:46AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:40 AM
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:38:08PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > > Because it's fundamental to the isolation of the device?  What you're
> > > proposing doesn't get around the group issue, it just makes it implicit
> > > rather than explicit in the uapi.
> > 
> > I'm not even sure it makes it explicit or implicit, it just takes away
> > the FD.
> > 
> > There are four group IOCTLs, I see them mapping to /dev/ioasid follows:
> >  VFIO_GROUP_GET_STATUS -
> >    + VFIO_GROUP_FLAGS_CONTAINER_SET is fairly redundant
> >    + VFIO_GROUP_FLAGS_VIABLE could be in a new sysfs under
> >      kernel/iomm_groups, or could be an IOCTL on /dev/ioasid
> >        IOASID_ALL_DEVICES_VIABLE
> > 
> >  VFIO_GROUP_SET_CONTAINER -
> >    + This happens implicitly when the device joins the IOASID
> >      so it gets moved to the vfio_device FD:
> >       ioctl(vifo_device_fd, JOIN_IOASID_FD, ioasifd)
> > 
> >  VFIO_GROUP_UNSET_CONTAINER -
> >    + Also moved to the vfio_device FD, opposite of JOIN_IOASID_FD
> > 
> >  VFIO_GROUP_GET_DEVICE_FD -
> >    + Replaced by opening /dev/vfio/deviceX
> >      Learn the deviceX which will be the cdev sysfs shows as:
> >       /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:01.0/0000:01:00.0/vfio/deviceX/dev
> >     Open /dev/vfio/deviceX
> > 
> > > > How do we model the VFIO group security concept to something like
> > > > VDPA?
> > >
> > > Is it really a "VFIO group security concept"?  We're reflecting the
> > > reality of the hardware, not all devices are fully isolated.
> > 
> > Well, exactly.
> > 
> > /dev/ioasid should understand the group concept somehow, otherwise it
> > is incomplete and maybe even security broken.
> > 
> > So, how do I add groups to, say, VDPA in a way that makes sense? The
> > only answer I come to is broadly what I outlined here - make
> > /dev/ioasid do all the group operations, and do them when we enjoin
> > the VDPA device to the ioasid.
> > 
> > Once I have solved all the groups problems with the non-VFIO users,
> > then where does that leave VFIO? Why does VFIO need a group FD if
> > everyone else doesn't?
> > 
> > > IOMMU group.  This is the reality that any userspace driver needs to
> > > play in, it doesn't magically go away because we drop the group file
> > > descriptor.
> > 
> > I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it makes the uAPI more regular and
> > easier to fit into /dev/ioasid without the group FD.
> > 
> > > It only makes the uapi more difficult to use correctly because
> > > userspace drivers need to go outside of the uapi to have any idea
> > > that this restriction exists.
> > 
> > I don't think it makes any substantive difference one way or the
> > other.
> > 
> > With the group FD: the userspace has to read sysfs, find the list of
> > devices in the group, open the group fd, create device FDs for each
> > device using the name from sysfs.
> > 
> > Starting from a BDF the general pseudo code is
> >  group_path = readlink("/sys/bus/pci/devices/BDF/iommu_group")
> >  group_name = basename(group_path)
> >  group_fd = open("/dev/vfio/"+group_name)
> >  device_fd = ioctl(VFIO_GROUP_GET_DEVICE_FD, BDF);
> > 
> > Without the group FD: the userspace has to read sysfs, find the list
> > of devices in the group and then open the device-specific cdev (found
> > via sysfs) and link them to a /dev/ioasid FD.
> > 
> > Starting from a BDF the general pseudo code is:
> >  device_name = first_directory_of("/sys/bus/pci/devices/BDF/vfio/")
> >  device_fd = open("/dev/vfio/"+device_name)
> >  ioasidfd = open("/dev/ioasid")
> >  ioctl(device_fd, JOIN_IOASID_FD, ioasidfd)
> > 
> > These two routes can have identical outcomes and identical security
> > checks.
> > 
> > In both cases if userspace wants a list of BDFs in the same group as
> > the BDF it is interested in:
> >    readdir("/sys/bus/pci/devices/BDF/iommu_group/devices")
> > 
> > It seems like a very small difference to me.
> > 
> > I still don't see how the group restriction gets surfaced to the
> > application through the group FD. The applications I looked through
> > just treat the group FD as a step on their way to get the device_fd.
> > 
> 
> So your proposal sort of moves the entire container/group/domain 
> managment into /dev/ioasid and then leaves vfio only provide device
> specific uAPI. An ioasid represents a page table (address space), thus 
> is equivalent to the scope of VFIO container.

Right.  I don't really know how /dev/iosasid is supposed to work, and
so far I don't see how it conceptually differs from a container.  What
is it adding?

> Having the device join 
> an ioasid is equivalent to attaching a device to VFIO container, and 
> here the group integrity must be enforced. Then /dev/ioasid anyway 
> needs to manage group objects and their association with ioasid and 
> underlying iommu domain thus it's pointless to keep same logic within
> VFIO. Is this understanding correct?
> 
> btw one remaining open is whether you expect /dev/ioasid to be 
> associated with a single iommu domain, or multiple. If only a single 
> domain is allowed, the ioasid_fd is equivalent to the scope of VFIO 
> container. It is supposed to have only one gpa_ioasid_id since one 
> iommu domain can only have a single 2nd level pgtable. Then all other 
> ioasids, once allocated, must be nested on this gpa_ioasid_id to fit 
> in the same domain. if a legacy vIOMMU is exposed (which disallows 
> nesting), the userspace has to open an ioasid_fd for every group. 
> This is basically the VFIO way. On the other hand if multiple domains 
> is allowed, there could be multiple ioasid_ids each holding a 2nd level 
> pgtable and an iommu domain (or a list of pgtables and domains due to
> incompatibility issue as discussed in another thread), and can be
> nested by other ioasids respectively. The application only needs
> to open /dev/ioasid once regardless of whether vIOMMU allows 
> nesting, and has a single interface for ioasid allocation. Which way
> do you prefer to?
> 
> Thanks
> Kevin
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists