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:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:37:55 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.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 Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:19:50 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com> wrote:

> > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 4:42 AM
> >   
> > > 'qemu --allow-no-snoop' makes more sense to me  
> > 
> > I'd be tempted to attach it to the -device vfio-pci option, it's
> > specific drivers for specific devices that are going to want this and
> > those devices may not be permanently attached to the VM.  But I see in
> > the other thread you're trying to optimize IOMMU page table sharing.
> > 
> > There's a usability question in either case though and I'm not sure how
> > to get around it other than QEMU or the kernel knowing a list of
> > devices (explicit IDs or vendor+class) to select per device defaults.
> >   
> 
> "-device vfio-pci" is a per-device option, which implies that the
> no-snoop choice is given to the admin then no need to maintain 
> a fixed device list in Qemu?

I think we want to look at where we put it to have the best default
user experience.  For example the QEMU vfio-pci device option could use
on/off/auto semantics where auto is the default and QEMU maintains a
list of IDs or vendor/class configurations where we've determined the
"optimal" auto configuration.  Management tools could provide an
override, but we're imposing some pretty technical requirements for a
management tool to be able to come up with good per device defaults.
Seems like we should consolidate that technical decision in one place.
Thanks,

Alex