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]

Message-ID: <8e55d3c2-82ac-9be6-5c15-181b459c7893@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 20:22:16 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        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>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2

On 2021/6/24 12:26, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 04:57:40PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 8:20 AM
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 03:14:52PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've referred to this as a limitation of type1, that we can't put
>>>> devices within the same group into different address spaces, such as
>>>> behind separate vRoot-Ports in a vIOMMU config, but really, who cares?
>>>> As isolation support improves we see fewer multi-device groups, this
>>>> scenario becomes the exception.  Buy better hardware to use the devices
>>>> independently.
>>>
>>> This is basically my thinking too, but my conclusion is that we should
>>> not continue to make groups central to the API.
>>>
>>> As I've explained to David this is actually causing functional
>>> problems and mess - and I don't see a clean way to keep groups central
>>> but still have the device in control of what is happening. We need
>>> this device <-> iommu connection to be direct to robustly model all
>>> the things that are in the RFC.
>>>
>>> To keep groups central someone needs to sketch out how to solve
>>> today's mdev SW page table and mdev PASID issues in a clean
>>> way. Device centric is my suggestion on how to make it clean, but I
>>> haven't heard an alternative??
>>>
>>> So, I view the purpose of this discussion to scope out what a
>>> device-centric world looks like and then if we can securely fit in the
>>> legacy non-isolated world on top of that clean future oriented
>>> API. Then decide if it is work worth doing or not.
>>>
>>> To my mind it looks like it is not so bad, granted not every detail is
>>> clear, and no code has be sketched, but I don't see a big scary
>>> blocker emerging. An extra ioctl or two, some special logic that
>>> activates for >1 device groups that looks a lot like VFIO's current
>>> logic..
>>>
>>> At some level I would be perfectly fine if we made the group FD part
>>> of the API for >1 device groups - except that complexifies every user
>>> space implementation to deal with that. It doesn't feel like a good
>>> trade off.
>>>
>>
>> Would it be an acceptable tradeoff by leaving >1 device groups
>> supported only via legacy VFIO (which is anyway kept for backward
>> compatibility), if we think such scenario is being deprecated over
>> time (thus little value to add new features on it)? Then all new
>> sub-systems including vdpa and new vfio only support singleton
>> device group via /dev/iommu...
> 
> The case that worries me here is if you *thought* you had 1 device
> groups, but then discover a hardware bug which means two things aren't
> as isolated as you thought they were.  What do you do then?
> 

Normally a hardware bug/quirk is identified during boot. For above case,
iommu core should put these two devices in a same iommu_group during
iommu_probe_device() phase. Any runtime hardware bug should be reported
to the OS through various methods so that the device could be quiet
and isolated. I don't think two devices could be in different groups
initially and then be moved to a single one.

Best regards,
baolu