linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal

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 21:10:42 +0800
From:   Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)" 
        <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
CC:     Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
        "wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com" <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal

On 2021/6/1 20:30, Lu Baolu wrote:
> On 2021/6/1 15:15, Shenming Lu wrote:
>> On 2021/6/1 13:10, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> Hi Shenming,
>>>
>>> On 6/1/21 12:31 PM, Shenming Lu wrote:
>>>> On 2021/5/27 15:58, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>> /dev/ioasid provides an unified interface for managing I/O page tables for
>>>>> devices assigned to userspace. Device passthrough frameworks (VFIO, vDPA,
>>>>> etc.) are expected to use this interface instead of creating their own logic to
>>>>> isolate untrusted device DMAs initiated by userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> This proposal describes the uAPI of /dev/ioasid and also sample sequences
>>>>> with VFIO as example in typical usages. The driver-facing kernel API provided
>>>>> by the iommu layer is still TBD, which can be discussed after consensus is
>>>>> made on this uAPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's based on a lengthy discussion starting from here:
>>>>>      https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210330132830.GO2356281@nvidia.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> It ends up to be a long writing due to many things to be summarized and
>>>>> non-trivial effort required to connect them into a complete proposal.
>>>>> Hope it provides a clean base to converge.
>>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>>     * Page fault report and response
>>>>>     *
>>>>>     * This is TBD. Can be added after other parts are cleared up. Likely it
>>>>>     * will be a ring buffer shared between user/kernel, an eventfd to notify
>>>>>     * the user and an ioctl to complete the fault.
>>>>>     *
>>>>>     * The fault data is per I/O address space, i.e.: IOASID + faulting_addr
>>>>>     */
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the ioasid has different usage in different situation, it could
>>>> be directly used in the physical routing, or just a virtual handle that indicates
>>>> a page table or a vPASID table (such as the GPA address space, in the simple
>>>> passthrough case, the DMA input to IOMMU will just contain a Stream ID, no
>>>> Substream ID), right?
>>>>
>>>> And Baolu suggested that since one device might consume multiple page tables,
>>>> it's more reasonable to have one fault handler per page table. By this, do we
>>>> have to maintain such an ioasid info list in the IOMMU layer?
>>> As discussed earlier, the I/O page fault and cache invalidation paths
>>> will have "device labels" so that the information could be easily
>>> translated and routed.
>>>
>>> So it's likely the per-device fault handler registering API in iommu
>>> core can be kept, but /dev/ioasid will be grown with a layer to
>>> translate and propagate I/O page fault information to the right
>>> consumers.
>> Yeah, having a general preprocessing of the faults in IOASID seems to be
>> a doable direction. But since there may be more than one consumer at the
>> same time, who is responsible for registering the per-device fault handler?
> 
> The drivers register per page table fault handlers to /dev/ioasid which
> will then register itself to iommu core to listen and route the per-
> device I/O page faults. This is just a top level thought. Haven't gone
> through the details yet. Need to wait and see what /dev/ioasid finally
> looks like.

OK. And it needs to be confirmed by Jean since we might migrate the code from
io-pgfault.c to IOASID... Anyway, finalize /dev/ioasid first.  Thanks,

Shenming

> 
> Best regards,
> baolu
> .