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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:57:12 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:     Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...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>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        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 Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 02:03:33PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:48:47PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 02:58:30PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:52:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:56:30AM +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 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. 
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't require, and certainly shouldn't create, a fake group.
> > > 
> > > It's only fake if you start with a narrow view of what a group is. 
> > 
> > A group is connected to drivers/iommu. A group object without *any*
> > relation to drivers/iommu is just a complete fiction, IMHO.
> 
> That might be where we differ.  As I've said, my group I'm primarily
> meaning the fundamental hardware unit of isolation.  *Usually* that's
> determined by the capabilities of an IOMMU, but in some cases it might
> not be.  In either case, the boundaries still matter.

As in my other email we absolutely need a group concept, it is just a
question of how the user API is designed around it.

> > The group mdev implicitly creates is just a fake proxy that comes
> > along with mdev API. It doesn't do anything and it doesn't mean
> > anything.
> 
> But.. the case of multiple mdevs managed by a single PCI device with
> an internal IOMMU also exists, and then the mdev groups are *not*
> proxies but true groups independent of the parent device.  Which means
> that the group structure of mdevs can vary, which is an argument *for*
> keeping it, not against.

If VFIO becomes more "vfio_device" centric then the vfio_device itself
has some properties. One of those can be "is it inside a drivers/iommu
group, or not?".

If the vfio_device is not using a drivers/iommu IOMMU interface then
it can just have no group at all - no reason to lie. This would mean
that the device has perfect isolation.

What I don't like is forcing certain things depending on how the
vfio_device was created - for instance forcing a IOMMU group as part
and forcing an ugly "SW IOMMU" mode in the container only as part of
mdev_device.

These should all be properties of the vfio_device itself.

Again this is all about the group fd - and how to fit in with the
/dev/ioasid proposal from Kevin:

https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/MWHPR11MB1886422D4839B372C6AB245F8C239@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com/

Focusing on vfio_device and skipping the group fd smooths out some
rough edges.

Code wise we are not quite there, but I have mapped out eliminating
the group from the vfio_device centric API and a few other places it
has crept in.

The group can exist in the background to enforce security without
being a cornerstone of the API design.

Jason