linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] iommu: Add device dma ownership set/release interfaces

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: <20211119154314.GA2105516@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:43:14 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Jörg Rödel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] iommu: Add device dma ownership set/release
 interfaces

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 04:06:12PM +0100, Jörg Rödel wrote:

> This change came to be because the iommu_attach/detach_device()
> interface doesn't fit well into a world with iommu-groups. Devices
> within a group are by definition not isolated between each other, so
> they must all be in the same address space (== iommu_domain). So it
> doesn't make sense to allow attaching a single device within a group to
> a different iommu_domain.

It is the same problem VFIO has. It changes the iommu_domain of a
group while it only has a single driver bound to one device in the
group.

Robin is also right to point out there is no guarentee that a single
device group will remain a single device group after a hot plug
event. This is something VFIO is also able to handle today.

So, I think the solution of this series applies equally well to this
problem. Let's see it in v2.

> I know that in theory it is safe to allow devices within a group to be
> in different domains because there iommu-groups catch multiple
> non-isolation cases:
> 
> 	1) Devices behind a non-ACS capable bridge or multiple functions
> 	   of a PCI device. Here it is safe to put the devices into
> 	   different iommu-domains as long as all affected devices are
> 	   controlled by the same owner.
> 
> 	2) Devices which share a single request-id and can't be
> 	   differentiated by the IOMMU hardware. These always need to be
> 	   in the same iommu_domain.

> To lift the single-domain-per-group requirement the iommu core code
> needs to learn the difference between the two cases above.

We had a long talk about this a while back, nobody came with
compelling arguments to justify doing this work. I've just been using
it as a guidepost for building APIs. If the API can accomodate #1 then
it is a better design than one that cannot.

Jason