Message-ID: <a67a709a-78b1-c3b1-009e-2d9c834bdd67@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 23:33:19 +0300
From:   Oleksandr <olekstysh@...il.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, hch@...radead.org,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc:     xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen: don't require virtio with grants for non-PV
 guests


On 16.06.22 11:56, Juergen Gross wrote:

Hello Juergen, all


> On 16.06.22 09:31, Oleksandr wrote:
>>
>> On 16.06.22 08:37, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Juergen
>>
>>> Commit fa1f57421e0b ("xen/virtio: Enable restricted memory access using
>>> Xen grant mappings") introduced a new requirement for using virtio
>>> devices: the backend now needs to support the VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> This is an undue requirement for non-PV guests, as those can be 
>>> operated
>>> with existing backends without any problem, as long as those backends
>>> are running in dom0.
>>>
>>> Per default allow virtio devices without grant support for non-PV
>>> guests.
>>>
>>> Add a new config item to always force use of grants for virtio.
>>>
>>> Fixes: fa1f57421e0b ("xen/virtio: Enable restricted memory access 
>>> using Xen grant mappings")
>>> Reported-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>>> ---
>>> V2:
>>> - remove command line parameter (Christoph Hellwig)
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/xen/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
>>>   include/xen/xen.h   | 2 +-
>>>   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/Kconfig b/drivers/xen/Kconfig
>>> index bfd5f4f706bc..a65bd92121a5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/Kconfig
>>> @@ -355,4 +355,13 @@ config XEN_VIRTIO
>>>         If in doubt, say n.
>>> +config XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT
>>> +    bool "Require Xen virtio support to use grants"
>>> +    depends on XEN_VIRTIO
>>> +    help
>>> +      Require virtio for Xen guests to use grant mappings.
>>> +      This will avoid the need to give the backend the right to map 
>>> all
>>> +      of the guest memory. This will need support on the backend side
>>> +      (e.g. qemu or kernel, depending on the virtio device types 
>>> used).
>>> +
>>>   endmenu
>>> diff --git a/include/xen/xen.h b/include/xen/xen.h
>>> index 0780a81e140d..4d4188f20337 100644
>>> --- a/include/xen/xen.h
>>> +++ b/include/xen/xen.h
>>> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ extern u64 xen_saved_max_mem_size;
>>>   static inline void xen_set_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void)
>>>   {
>>> -    if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO) && xen_domain())
>>> +    if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT) || xen_pv_domain())
>>>           platform_set(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS);
>>
>>
>> Looks like, the flag will be *always* set for paravirtualized guests 
>> even if CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO disabled.
>>
>> Maybe we should clarify the check?
>>
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT) || 
>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO) && xen_pv_domain())
>>
>>      platform_set(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS);
>>
>
> Yes, we should. I had the function in grant-dma-ops.c in V1, and could 
> drop the
> CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO dependency for that reason.
>
> I'll wait for more comments before sending V3, though.

ok



Please note, I am happy with current patch and it works in my Arm64 
based environment.

Just one moment to consider.


As it was already mentioned earlier in current thread the 
PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS (former 
arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access()) is not per device but about 
the whole guest. Being set it makes VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM and 
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 features mandatory for *all* virtio devices in the guest.

The question is “Do we want/need to lift this restriction for some 
devices (which backends are trusted so can access all guest memory) at 
the same time”? Copy here the original Viresh's question for the 
convenience:

"I understand from your email that the backends need to offer the 
VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM flag now, but should this requirement be a bit 
soft?
I mean shouldn't we allow both types of backends to run with the same 
kernel, ones that offer this feature and others that don't? The ones 
that don't offer the feature, should continue to work like they used to, 
i.e. without the restricted memory access feature."

Technically this can be possible with HVM.

Let's imagine the following situation:

- Dom0 with backends which don't offer required features for some reason(s)

But running in Dom0 (trusted domain) these backends are not obliged to 
offer it (yes they can offer the required features and support grant 
mappings for the virtio, but this is not strictly necessary, as they are 
considered as trusted so are allowed to access all guest memory).

- DomD with backend which do offer them and require grant mappings for 
the virtio

If this is a valid and correct use-case, then we indeed need an ability 
to control that per device, otherwise - what is written below doesn't 
really matter.

I am wondering whether we can avoid using global 
PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS for Xen guests at all? I assume 
that all we need to do (when CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO is enabled) is to make 
sure that *only* Xen grant DMA devices in HVM guests and *all* devices 
in PV guests offer required flags.

Below the diff how this could be done w/o an extra options (not 
completely tested), although I realize it might look hackish, and a lot 
more effort is needed to get it right. In my Arm64 based environment it 
works, I have tried to run two backends, the first offered required 
features and the corresponding device node had required property, but 
the second didn’t and there was no property.

diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
index 1f9c3ba..07eb69f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
@@ -443,8 +443,6 @@ static int __init xen_guest_init(void)
         if (!xen_domain())
                 return 0;

-       xen_set_restricted_virtio_memory_access();
-
         if (!acpi_disabled)
                 xen_acpi_guest_init();
         else
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c
index 8b71b1d..517a9d8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c
@@ -195,8 +195,6 @@ static void __init xen_hvm_guest_init(void)
         if (xen_pv_domain())
                 return;

-       xen_set_restricted_virtio_memory_access();
-
         init_hvm_pv_info();

         reserve_shared_info();
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
index 30d24fe..ca85d14 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -108,8 +108,6 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tls_descs, 
shadow_tls_desc);

  static void __init xen_pv_init_platform(void)
  {
-       xen_set_restricted_virtio_memory_access();
-
         populate_extra_pte(fix_to_virt(FIX_PARAVIRT_BOOTMAP));

         set_fixmap(FIX_PARAVIRT_BOOTMAP, xen_start_info->shared_info);
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
index 371e16b..875690a 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
@@ -167,6 +167,11 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, 
unsigned int status)
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_add_status);

+int __weak device_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(struct device *dev)
+{
+       return platform_has(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS);
+}
+
  /* Do some validation, then set FEATURES_OK */
  static int virtio_features_ok(struct virtio_device *dev)
  {
@@ -174,7 +179,7 @@ static int virtio_features_ok(struct virtio_device *dev)

         might_sleep();

-       if (platform_has(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS)) {
+       if (device_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(dev->dev.parent)) {
                 if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
                         dev_warn(&dev->dev,
                                  "device must provide 
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
diff --git a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
index 6586152..da938f6 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
  #include <linux/dma-map-ops.h>
  #include <linux/of.h>
  #include <linux/pfn.h>
+#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
  #include <linux/xarray.h>
  #include <xen/xen.h>
  #include <xen/grant_table.h>
@@ -286,6 +287,11 @@ bool xen_is_grant_dma_device(struct device *dev)
         return has_iommu;
  }

+int device_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(struct device *dev)
+{
+       return (xen_pv_domain() || xen_is_grant_dma_device(dev));
+}
+
  void xen_grant_setup_dma_ops(struct device *dev)
  {
         struct xen_grant_dma_data *data;
diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_config.h b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
index 7949829..b3a455b 100644
--- a/include/linux/virtio_config.h
+++ b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
@@ -559,4 +559,6 @@ static inline void virtio_cwrite64(struct 
virtio_device *vdev,
_r;                                                     \
         })

+int device_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(struct device *dev);
+
  #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_CONFIG_H */
diff --git a/include/xen/xen.h b/include/xen/xen.h
index 0780a81..a99bab8 100644
--- a/include/xen/xen.h
+++ b/include/xen/xen.h
@@ -52,14 +52,6 @@ bool xen_biovec_phys_mergeable(const struct bio_vec 
*vec1,
  extern u64 xen_saved_max_mem_size;
  #endif

-#include <linux/platform-feature.h>
-
-static inline void xen_set_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void)
-{
-       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO) && xen_domain())
- platform_set(PLATFORM_VIRTIO_RESTRICTED_MEM_ACCESS);
-}
-
  #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC
  int xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page 
**pages);
  void xen_free_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page 
**pages);
(END)


I think when x86 HVM gains required support (via ACPI or other means) to 
communicate the x86's alternative of "xen,grant-dma" then 
xen_is_grant_dma_device() will be just extended to handle that.


bool xen_is_grant_dma_device(struct device *dev)
{
     struct device_node *iommu_np;
     bool has_iommu;

     /* XXX Handle only DT devices for now */
     if (!dev->of_node)
         return false;

     iommu_np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "iommus", 0);
     has_iommu = iommu_np && of_device_is_compatible(iommu_np, 
"xen,grant-dma");
     of_node_put(iommu_np);

     return has_iommu;
}



>
>
>
> Juergen

-- 
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists