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 17:40:34 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        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 04/06/21 17:26, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Let's make sure the KVM folks are part of this decision; a re-cap for
> them, KVM currently automatically enables wbinvd emulation when
> potentially non-coherent devices are present which is determined solely
> based on the IOMMU's (or platform's, as exposed via the IOMMU) ability
> to essentially force no-snoop transactions from a device to be cache
> coherent.  This synchronization is triggered via the kvm-vfio device,
> where QEMU creates the device and adds/removes vfio group fd
> descriptors as an additionally layer to prevent the user from enabling
> wbinvd emulation on a whim.
> 
> IIRC, this latter association was considered a security/DoS issue to
> prevent a malicious guest/userspace from creating a disproportionate
> system load.
> 
> Where would KVM stand on allowing more direct userspace control of
> wbinvd behavior?  Would arbitrary control be acceptable or should we
> continue to require it only in association to a device requiring it for
> correct operation.

Extending the scenarios where WBINVD is not a nop is not a problem for 
me.  If possible I wouldn't mind keeping the existing kvm-vfio 
connection via the device, if only because then the decision remains in 
the VFIO camp (whose judgment I trust more than mine on this kind of issue).

For example, would it make sense if *VFIO* (not KVM) gets an API that 
says "I am going to do incoherent DMA"?  Then that API causes WBINVD to 
become not-a-nop even on otherwise coherent platforms.  (Would this make 
sense at all without a hypervisor that indirectly lets userspace execute 
WBINVD?  Perhaps VFIO would benefit from a WBINVD ioctl too).

Paolo