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: <20210609144530.GD1002214@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:45:30 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        "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, Jun 09, 2021 at 08:31:34AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:

> If we go back to the wbinvd ioctl mechanism, if I call that ioctl with
> an ioasidfd that contains no devices, then I shouldn't be able to
> generate a wbinvd on the processor, right?  If I add a device,
> especially in a configuration that can generate non-coherent DMA, now
> that ioctl should work.  If I then remove all devices from that ioasid,
> what then is the difference from the initial state.  Should the ioctl
> now work because it worked once in the past?

The ioctl is fine, but telling KVM to enable WBINVD is very similar to
open and then reconfiguring the ioasid_fd is very similar to
chmod. From a security perspective revoke is not strictly required,
IMHO.

> access.  This is no different than starting a shell via sudo (ie. an
> ongoing reference) or having the previous authentication time out, or
> in our case be notified it has expired.

Those are all authentication gates as well, yes sudo has a timer, but
once the timer expires it doesn't forcibly revoke & close all the
existing sudo sessions. It just means you can't create new ones
without authenticating.

> > > That's already more or less meaningless for both KVM and VFIO, since they
> > > are tied to an mm.  
> > 
> > vfio isn't supposed to be tied to a mm.
> 
> vfio does accounting against an mm, why shouldn't it be tied to an mm?

It looks like vfio type 1 is doing it properly, each ranch of of user
VA is stuffed into a struct vfio_dma and that contains a struct task
(which can be a mm_struct these days) that refers to the owning mm.

Looks like a single fd can hold multiple vfio_dma's and I don't see an
enforcment that current is locked to any specific process.

When the accounting is done it is done via the mm obtained through the
vfio_dma struct, not a global FD wide mm.

This appears all fine for something using pin_user_pages(). We don't
expect FDs to become locked to a single process on the first call to
pin_user_pages() that is un-unixy.

kvm is special in this regard.

Jason