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]

Message-ID: <20210602111117.026d4a26.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:11:17 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:01:40 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 02:20:15AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 6:22 AM
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:01:57 +0000
> > > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > I summarized five opens here, about:
> > > >
> > > > 1)  Finalizing the name to replace /dev/ioasid;
> > > > 2)  Whether one device is allowed to bind to multiple IOASID fd's;
> > > > 3)  Carry device information in invalidation/fault reporting uAPI;
> > > > 4)  What should/could be specified when allocating an IOASID;
> > > > 5)  The protocol between vfio group and kvm;
> > > >  
> > > ...  
> > > >
> > > > For 5), I'd expect Alex to chime in. Per my understanding looks the
> > > > original purpose of this protocol is not about I/O address space. It's
> > > > for KVM to know whether any device is assigned to this VM and then
> > > > do something special (e.g. posted interrupt, EPT cache attribute, etc.).  
> > > 
> > > Right, the original use case was for KVM to determine whether it needs
> > > to emulate invlpg, so it needs to be aware when an assigned device is  
> > 
> > invlpg -> wbinvd :)

Oops, of course.
   
> > > present and be able to test if DMA for that device is cache
> > > coherent.  
> 
> Why is this such a strong linkage to VFIO and not just a 'hey kvm
> emulate wbinvd' flag from qemu?

IIRC, wbinvd has host implications, a malicious user could tell KVM to
emulate wbinvd then run the op in a loop and induce a disproportionate
load on the system.  We therefore wanted a way that it would only be
enabled when required.

> I briefly didn't see any obvios linkage in the arch code, just some
> dead code:
> 
> $ git grep iommu_noncoherent
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h:	bool iommu_noncoherent;
> $ git grep iommu_domain arch/x86
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h:        struct iommu_domain *iommu_domain;
> 
> Huh?

Cruft from legacy KVM device assignment, I assume.  What you're looking
for is:

kvm_vfio_update_coherency
 kvm_arch_register_noncoherent_dma
  atomic_inc(&kvm->arch.noncoherent_dma_count);

need_emulate_wbinvd
 kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma
  atomic_read(&kvm->arch.noncoherent_dma_count);

There are a couple other callers that I'm not as familiar with.

> It kind of looks like the other main point is to generate the
> VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM which is being used by two VFIO drivers to
> connect back to the kvm data
> 
> But that seems like it would have been better handled with some IOCTL
> on the vfio_device fd to import the KVM to the driver not this
> roundabout way?

Then QEMU would need to know which drivers require KVM knowledge?  This
allowed transparent backwards compatibility with userspace.  Thanks,

Alex