linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] iommufd: Fault-capable hwpt attach/detach/replace

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <16e5d5df-3a4d-4bf3-adf6-8edb08df985c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:36:06 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
 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>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
 Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
 virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] iommufd: Fault-capable hwpt
 attach/detach/replace

On 2024/7/10 1:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 01:55:12PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/6/29 5:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> +static int iommufd_fault_iopf_enable(struct iommufd_device *idev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct device *dev = idev->dev;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Once we turn on PCI/PRI support for VF, the response failure code
>>>> +	 * should not be forwarded to the hardware due to PRI being a shared
>>>> +	 * resource between PF and VFs. There is no coordination for this
>>>> +	 * shared capability. This waits for a vPRI reset to recover.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (dev_is_pci(dev) && to_pci_dev(dev)->is_virtfn)
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> I don't quite get this remark, isn't not supporting PRI on VFs kind of
>>> useless? What is the story here?
>> This remark is trying to explain why attaching an iopf-capable hwpt to a
>> VF is not supported for now. The PCI sepc (section 10.4.2.1) states that
>> a response failure will disable the PRI on the function. But for PF/VF
>> case, the PRI is a shared resource, therefore a response failure on a VF
>> might cause iopf on other VFs to malfunction. So, we start from simple
>> by not allowing it.
> You are talking about IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE ?
> 
> But this is bad already, something like SVA could trigger
> IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE on a VF without iommufd today. Due to memory
> allocation failure in iommu_report_device_fault()
> 
> And then we pass in code from userspace and blindly cast it to
> enum iommu_page_response_code ?
> 
> Probably we should just only support IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS/INVALID
> from userspace and block FAILURE entirely. Probably the VMM should
> emulate FAILURE by disabling PRI on by changing to a non PRI domain.
> 
> And this subtle uABI leak needs a fix:
> 
> 		iopf_group_response(group, response.code);
> 
> response.code and enum iommu_page_response_code are different
> enums, and there is no range check. Need a static assert at least and
> a range check. Send a followup patch please

Yes, sure.

Thanks,
baolu