linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Add a fix for devices need extra dtlb flush

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: <992ba86c-73e6-8db0-0216-c2a8b7d1f58f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 10:52:32 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "Luo, Yuzhang" <yuzhang.luo@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Add a fix for devices need extra dtlb flush

On 11/23/22 7:32 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-11-23 05:18, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 1:04 PM
>>>
>>> On 2022/11/23 9:02, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 1:49 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* Impacted QAT device IDs ranging from 0x4940 to 0x4943 */
>>>>>> +#define BUGGY_QAT_DEVID_MASK 0x494c
>>>>>> +static bool dev_needs_extra_dtlb_flush(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    if (pdev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL)
>>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if ((pdev->device & 0xfffc) != BUGGY_QAT_DEVID_MASK)
>>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    if (risky_device(pdev))
>>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, I'm not sure that that makes much sense to me - what privilege 
>>>>> can
>>>>> the device gain from being told to invalidate things twice? Why 
>>>>> would we
>>>>> want to implicitly *allow* a device to potentially keep using a stale
>>>>> translation if for some bizarre reason firmware has marked it as
>>>>> external, surely that's worse?
>>>
>>>   From the perspective of IOMMU, any quirk is only applicable to trusted
>>> devices. If the IOMMU driver detects that a quirk is being applied to an
>>> untrusted device, it is already buggy or malicious. The IOMMU driver
>>> should let the users know by:
>>>
>>>     pci_info(pdev,
>>>          "Skipping IOMMU quirk for dev [%04X:%04X] on untrusted
>>> PCI link\n",
>>>          pdev->vendor, pdev->device);
>>>     pci_info(pdev, "Please check with your BIOS/Platform vendor about
>>> this\n");
>>>
>>> and stop applying any quirk.
>>>
>>
>> A quirk usually relaxes something then you want it only on trusted 
>> devices.
>>
>> but the quirk in this patch is trying to fix a vulnerability. In 
>> concept it's
>> weird to skip it on untrusted devices. This iiuc was the part causing 
>> confusion
>> to Robin.
> 
> Right, it's that reasoning in general that seems bogus to me. Clearly 
> any quirk that effectively grants additional privileges, like an 
> identity mapping quirk, should not be applied to untrusted external 
> devices which may be spoofing an affected VID/DID to gain that 
> privilege, but not all quirks imply privilege. If, say, a WiFI 
> controller needs something innocuous like a DMA alias or address width 
> quirk to function correctly, it will still need that regardless of 
> whether it's soldered to a motherboard or to a removable expansion card, 
> and it would do nobody any good to deny correct functionality based on 
> that unnecessary distinction. Yes, I appreciate that in practice many of 
> those kind of quirks will be applied in other layers anyway, but I still 
> think it's wrong to make a sweeping assumption that all IOMMU-level 
> quirks are precious treasure not to be shared with outsiders, rather 
> than assess their impact individually. The detriment in this case is 
> small (just needless code churn), but even that's still not nothing.

Fair enough. I agreed here.

Can we put some comments here so that people can still easily read the
discussion here after a long time?

Best regards,
baolu