[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB543354BB34FC69D9237DED5E8CA99@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:34:29 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 08/20] vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:28 PM
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:41:00AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:01 PM
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:38:36PM +0800, Liu Yi L wrote:
> > > > This patch adds VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD for userspace to bind
> the
> > > vfio
> > > > device to an iommufd. No VFIO_DEVICE_UNBIND_IOMMUFD interface
> is
> > > provided
> > > > because it's implicitly done when the device fd is closed.
> > > >
> > > > In concept a vfio device can be bound to multiple iommufds, each
> hosting
> > > > a subset of I/O address spaces attached by this device.
> > >
> > > I really feel like this many<->many mapping between devices is going
> > > to be super-confusing, and therefore make it really hard to be
> > > confident we have all the rules right for proper isolation.
> >
> > Based on new discussion on group ownership part (patch06), I feel this
> > many<->many relationship will disappear. The context fd (either container
> > or iommufd) will uniquely mark the ownership on a physical device and
> > its group. With this design it's impractical to have one device bound
> > to multiple iommufds.
>
> That should be a requirement! We have no way to prove that two
> iommufds are the same security domain, so devices/groups cannot be
> shared.
>
> That is why the API I suggested takes in a struct file to ID the user
> security context. A group is accessible only from that single struct
> file and no more.
>
> If the first series goes the way I outlined then I think David's
> concern about security is strongly solved as the IOMMU layer is
> directly managing it with a very clear responsiblity and semantic.
>
Yes, this is also my understanding now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists