[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zk1lZNCPywTmythz@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 11:24:20 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "Tian, Kevin"
<kevin.tian@...el.com>, "Vetter, Daniel" <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com"
<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] vfio/type1: Flush CPU caches on DMA pages in
non-coherent domains
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 01:34:00PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:21:23AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > > Intel GPU weirdness should not leak into making other devices
> > > insecure/slow. If necessary Intel GPU only should get some variant
> > > override to keep no snoop working.
> > >
> > > It would make alot of good sense if VFIO made the default to disable
> > > no-snoop via the config space.
> >
> > We can certainly virtualize the config space no-snoop enable bit, but
> > I'm not sure what it actually accomplishes. We'd then be relying on
> > the device to honor the bit and not have any backdoors to twiddle the
> > bit otherwise (where we know that GPUs often have multiple paths to get
> > to config space).
>
> I'm OK with this. If devices are insecure then they need quirks in
> vfio to disclose their problems, we shouldn't punish everyone who
> followed the spec because of some bad actors.
Does that mean a malicous device that does not honor the bit could read
uninitialized host data?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists