linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Simple device assignment with VFIO platform

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: <0e87a96a-98ed-48ad-9235-900d46fe5400@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:05:38 +0200
From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kwankhede@...dia.com,
 Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Simple device assignment with VFIO platform

Hi Mostafa,

On 9/27/24 18:17, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Background
> ==========
> I have been looking into assigning simple devices which are not DMA
> capable to VMs on Android using VFIO platform.
>
> I have been mainly looking with respect to Protected KVM (pKVM), which
> would need some extra modifications mostly to KVM-VFIO, that is quite
> early under prototyping at the moment, which have core pending pKVM
> dependencies upstream as guest memfd[1] and IOMMUs support[2].
>
> However, this problem is not pKVM(or KVM) specific, and about the
> design of VFIO.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240801090117.3841080-1-tabba@google.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20230201125328.2186498-1-jean-philippe@linaro.org/
>
> Problem
> =======
> At the moment, VFIO platform will deny a device from probing (through
> vfio_group_find_or_alloc()), if it’s not part of an IOMMU group,
> unless (CONFIG_VFIO_NOIOMMU is configured)
>
> As far as I understand the current solutions to pass through platform
> devices that are not DMA capable are:
> - Use VFIO platform + (CONFIG_VFIO_NOIOMMU): The problem with that, it
> taints the kernel and this doesn’t actually fit the device description
> as the device doesn’t only have an IOMMU, but it’s not DMA capable at
> all, so the kernel should be safe with assigning the device without
> DMA isolation.
>
> - Use VFIO mdev with an emulated IOMMU, this seems it could work. But
> many of the code would be duplicate with the VFIO platform code as the
> device is a platform device.
>
> - Use UIO: Can map MMIO to userspace which seems to be focused for
> userspace drivers rather than VM passthrough and I can’t find its
> support in Qemu.
In case you did not have this reference, you may have a look at Alex'
reply in
https://patchew.org/QEMU/1518189456-2873-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be/1518189456-2873-5-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be/
>
> One other benefit from supporting this in VFIO platform, that we can
> use the existing UAPI for platform devices (and support in VMMs)
>
> Proposal
> ========
> Extend VFIO platform to allow assigning devices without an IOMMU, this
> can be possibly done by
> - Checking device capability from the platform bus (would be something
> ACPI/OF specific similar to how it configures DMA from
> platform_dma_configure(), we can add a new function something like
> platfrom_dma_capable())
>
> - Using emulated IOMMU for such devices
> (vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev()), instead of having intrusive
> changes about IOMMUs existence.
>
> If that makes sense I can work on RFC(I don’t have any code at the moment)
So if I understand correctly, assuming you are able to safely detect the
device is not DMA capable you would use the

vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev() trick. Is that correct?

Thanks

Eric

>
> Thanks,
> Mostafa
>