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: <20210525165252.6959d9da.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 16:52:52 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 05/18] iommu/ioasid: Redefine IOASID set and
 allocation APIs

On Wed, 26 May 2021 00:56:30 +0530
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/2021 5:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 05:52:58PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> >   
> >>>> I don't really see a semantic distinction between "always one-device
> >>>> groups" and "groups don't matter".  Really the only way you can afford
> >>>> to not care about groups is if they're singletons.  
> >>>
> >>> The kernel driver under the mdev may not be in an "always one-device"
> >>> group.  
> >>
> >> I don't really understand what you mean by that.  
> > 
> > I mean the group of the mdev's actual DMA device may have multiple
> > things in it.
> >     
> >>> It is a kernel driver so the only thing we know and care about is that
> >>> all devices in the HW group are bound to kernel drivers.
> >>>
> >>> The vfio device that spawns from this kernel driver is really a
> >>> "groups don't matter" vfio device because at the IOMMU layer it should
> >>> be riding on the physical group of the kernel driver.  At the VFIO
> >>> layer we no longer care about the group abstraction because the system
> >>> guarentees isolation in some other way.  
> >>
> >> Uh.. I don't really know how mdevs are isolated from each other.  I
> >> thought it was because the physical device providing the mdevs
> >> effectively had an internal IOMMU (or at least DMA permissioning) to
> >> isolate the mdevs, even though the physical device may not be fully
> >> isolated.
> >>
> >> In that case the virtual mdev is effectively in a singleton group,
> >> which is different from the group of its parent device.  
> >   
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> > That is one way to view it, but it means creating a whole group
> > infrastructure and abusing the IOMMU stack just to create this
> > nonsense fiction.  
> 
> I really didn't get how this abuse the IOMMU stack.
> mdev can be used in 3 different ways:
> 1. non-iommu backed mdev devices where mdev vendor driver takes care to
> DMA map (iommu_map) and isolation is through device hardware internal
> MMU. Here vfio_iommu_type1 module provides a way to validate and pin
> pages required by mdev device for DMA mapping. Then IOMMU mapping is
> done by mdev vendor driver which is owner driver of physical device.
> 
> 2. iommu backed mdev devices for SRIOV where mdev device is created per
> VF (mdev device == VF device) then that mdev device has same iommu
> protection scope as VF associated to it. Here mdev device is virtual
> device which uses features of mdev and represents underlying VF device,
> same as vfio-pci but with additional mdev features.

What features would those be?  There are no mdev specific parts of the
vfio uAPI.

The mdev device is a virtual device, by why it it virtual in this case?
Aren't we effectively assigning the VF itself (mdev device == VF device)
with a bunch of extra support code to fill in the gaps of the VF
implementing the complete device model in hardware?

We're effectively creating this virtual device, creating a fake IOMMU
group, and trying to create this association of this virtual device to
the real VF in order to shoehorn it into the mdev model.  What do we
get from that model other than lifecycle management (ie. type selection)
and re-use of a bunch of code from the driver supporting the 1) model
above?

This specific model seems better served by a device specific peer
driver to vfio-pci (ie. a "vfio-pci variant").  You effectively already
have the code for this driver, it's just in the format of an mdev
driver rather than a vfio "bus driver".  The work Jason references
relative to Max aims to make these kinds of drivers easier to implement
through re-use of vfio-pci code.

There are certainly other solutions we could come up with for selecting
a specific device type for a vfio-pci variant driver to implement other
than pretending this model actually belongs in mdev, right?  Thanks,

Alex