linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 06/20] iommu: Add iommu_device_init[exit]_user

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: <BN9PR11MB5433B8CB2F1EA1A2D06586588CA99@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 00:38:35 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "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>,
        "david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        "nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC 06/20] iommu: Add iommu_device_init[exit]_user_dma
 interfaces

> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:07 PM
> 
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:35:05PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > Another issue is, when putting a device into user-dma mode, all devices
> > belonging to the same iommu group shouldn't be bound with a kernel-dma
> > driver. Kevin's prototype checks this by READ_ONCE(dev->driver). This is
> > not lock safe as discussed below,
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> iommu/20210927130935.GZ964074@...dia.com/
> >
> > Any guidance on this?
> 
> Something like this?
> 
> 

yes, with this group level atomics we don't need loop every dev->driver
respectively.

> int iommu_set_device_dma_owner(struct device *dev, enum
> device_dma_owner mode,
> 			       struct file *user_owner)
> {
> 	struct iommu_group *group = group_from_dev(dev);
> 
> 	spin_lock(&iommu_group->dma_owner_lock);
> 	switch (mode) {
> 		case DMA_OWNER_KERNEL:
> 			if (iommu_group-
> >dma_users[DMA_OWNER_USERSPACE])
> 				return -EBUSY;
> 			break;
> 		case DMA_OWNER_SHARED:
> 			break;
> 		case DMA_OWNER_USERSPACE:
> 			if (iommu_group-
> >dma_users[DMA_OWNER_KERNEL])
> 				return -EBUSY;
> 			if (iommu_group->dma_owner_file != user_owner) {
> 				if (iommu_group-
> >dma_users[DMA_OWNER_USERSPACE])
> 					return -EPERM;
> 				get_file(user_owner);
> 				iommu_group->dma_owner_file =
> user_owner;
> 			}
> 			break;
> 		default:
> 			spin_unlock(&iommu_group->dma_owner_lock);
> 			return -EINVAL;
> 	}
> 	iommu_group->dma_users[mode]++;
> 	spin_unlock(&iommu_group->dma_owner_lock);
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> int iommu_release_device_dma_owner(struct device *dev,
> 				   enum device_dma_owner mode)
> {
> 	struct iommu_group *group = group_from_dev(dev);
> 
> 	spin_lock(&iommu_group->dma_owner_lock);
> 	if (WARN_ON(!iommu_group->dma_users[mode]))
> 		goto err_unlock;
> 	if (!iommu_group->dma_users[mode]--) {
> 		if (mode == DMA_OWNER_USERSPACE) {
> 			fput(iommu_group->dma_owner_file);
> 			iommu_group->dma_owner_file = NULL;
> 		}
> 	}
> err_unlock:
> 	spin_unlock(&iommu_group->dma_owner_lock);
> }
> 
> 
> Where, the driver core does before probe:
> 
>    iommu_set_device_dma_owner(dev, DMA_OWNER_KERNEL, NULL)
> 
> pci_stub/etc does in their probe func:
> 
>    iommu_set_device_dma_owner(dev, DMA_OWNER_SHARED, NULL)
> 
> And vfio/iommfd does when a struct vfio_device FD is attached:
> 
>    iommu_set_device_dma_owner(dev, DMA_OWNER_USERSPACE,
> group_file/iommu_file)
> 

Just a nit. Per your comment in previous mail:

/* If set the driver must call iommu_XX as the first action in probe() */
 bool suppress_dma_owner:1;

Following above logic userspace drivers won't call iommu_XX in probe().
Just want to double confirm whether you see any issue here with this
relaxed behavior. If no problem:

/* If set the driver must call iommu_XX as the first action in probe() or
  * before it attempts to do DMA
  */
 bool suppress_dma_owner:1;

Thanks
Kevin