linux-kernel - Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2

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, 18 Jun 2021 09:51:57 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "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>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:37:35 -0700
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:15:06PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 03:47:51PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:  
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 07:31:03AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:  
> > > > Now let's talk about the new IOMMU behavior:
> > > > 
> > > > -   A device is blocked from doing DMA to any resource outside of
> > > >     its group when it's probed by the IOMMU driver. This could be a
> > > >     special state w/o attaching to any domain, or a new special domain
> > > >     type which differentiates it from existing domain types (identity, 
> > > >     dma, or unmanged). Actually existing code already includes a
> > > >     IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED type but nobody uses it.  
> > > 
> > > There is a reason for the default domain to exist: Devices which require
> > > RMRR mappings to be present. You can't just block all DMA from devices
> > > until a driver takes over, we put much effort into making sure there is
> > > not even a small window in time where RMRR regions (unity mapped regions
> > > on AMD) are not mapped.  
> > 
> > Yes, I think the DMA blocking can only start around/after a VFIO type
> > driver has probed() and bound to a device in the group, not much
> > different from today.  
> 
> Does this mean when a device has a required "RMRR" that requires a unity
> mapping we block assigning those devices to guests? I remember we had some
> restriction but there was a need to go around it at some point in time.
> 
> - Either we disallow assigning devices with RMRR
> - Break that unity map when the device is probed and after which any RMRR
>   access from device will fault.

We currently disallow assignment of RMRR encumbered devices except for
the known cases of USB and IGD.  In the general case, an RMRR imposes
a requirement on the host system to maintain ranges of identity mapping
that is incompatible with userspace ownership of the device and IOVA
address space.  AFAICT, nothing changes in the /dev/iommu model that
would make it safe to entrust userspace with RMRR encumbered devices.
Thanks,

Alex