linux-kernel - RE: [RFC v2] /dev/iommu 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:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:13:23 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>
CC:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "Jean-Philippe Brucker" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com" <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)" 
        <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC v2] /dev/iommu uAPI proposal

> From: Shenming Lu
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 8:20 PM
> 
> On 2021/7/16 9:20, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>  > To summarize, for vIOMMU we can work with the spec owner to
> > define a proper interface to feedback such restriction into the guest
> > if necessary. For the kernel part, it's clear that IOMMU fd should
> > disallow two devices attached to a single [RID] or [RID, PASID] slot
> > in the first place.
> >
> > Then the next question is how to communicate such restriction
> > to the userspace. It sounds like a group, but different in concept.
> > An iommu group describes the minimal isolation boundary thus all
> > devices in the group can be only assigned to a single user. But this
> > case is opposite - the two mdevs (both support ENQCMD submission)
> > with the same parent have problem when assigned to a single VM
> > (in this case vPASID is vm-wide translated thus a same pPASID will be
> > used cross both mdevs) while they instead work pretty well when
> > assigned to different VMs (completely different vPASID spaces thus
> > different pPASIDs).
> >
> > One thought is to have vfio device driver deal with it. In this proposal
> > it is the vfio device driver to define the PASID virtualization policy and
> > report it to userspace via VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO. The driver understands
> > the restriction thus could just hide the vPASID capability when the user
> > calls GET_INFO on the 2nd mdev in above scenario. In this way the
> > user even doesn't need to know such restriction at all and both mdevs
> > can be assigned to a single VM w/o any problem.
> >
> 
> The restriction only probably happens when two mdevs are assigned to one
> VM,
> how could the vfio device driver get to know this info to accurately hide
> the vPASID capability for the 2nd mdev when VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO?
> There is no
> need to do this in other cases.
> 

I suppose the driver can detect it via whether two mdevs are opened by a
single process.

Thanks
Kevin