linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 08/20] vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_BIND

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB54331D06D97B4FC975D8D23B8CA99@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 06:41:00 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
CC:     "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.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: 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. Actually I don't think this is a compelling usage
in reality. The previous rationale was that no need to impose such restriction
if no special reason... and now we have a reason. 😊

Jason, are you OK with this simplification?

> 
> That's why I was suggesting a concept like endpoints, to break this
> into two many<->one relationships.  I'm ok if that isn't visible in
> the user API, but I think this is going to be really hard to keep
> track of if it isn't explicit somewhere in the internals.
> 

I think this endpoint concept is represented by ioas_device_info in
patch14:

+/*
+ * An ioas_device_info object is created per each successful attaching
+ * request. A list of objects are maintained per ioas when the address
+ * space is shared by multiple devices.
+ */
+struct ioas_device_info {
+	struct iommufd_device *idev;
+	struct list_head next;
 };

currently it's 1:1 mapping before this object and iommufd_device, 
because no pasid support yet.

We can rename it to struct ioas_endpoint if it makes you feel better.

Thanks
Kevin