linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommufd: Add iommufd fault object

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: <BN9PR11MB52765979B524A9362B3D773B8CE92@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 03:33:14 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	"Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy
	<robin.murphy@....com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Jacob
 Pan" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
CC: "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
	<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommufd: Add iommufd fault object

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:34 AM
> 
> On 5/15/24 4:37 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> +
> >> +		iopf_group_response(group, response.code);
> > PCIe spec states that a response failure disables the PRI interface. For SR-
> IOV
> > it'd be dangerous allowing user to trigger such code to VF to close the
> entire
> > shared PRI interface.
> >
> > Just another example lacking of coordination for shared capabilities
> between
> > PF/VF. But exposing such gap to userspace makes it worse.
> 
> Yes. You are right.
> 
> >
> > I guess we don't want to make this work depending on that cleanup. The
> > minimal correct thing is to disallow attaching VF to a fault-capable hwpt
> > with a note here that once we turn on support for VF the response failure
> > code should not be forwarded to the hardware. Instead it's an indication
> > that the user cannot serve more requests and such situation waits for
> > a vPRI reset to recover.
> 
> Is it the same thing to disallow PRI for VF in IOMMUFD?
> 

yes