[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250123130858.GI5556@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 09:08:58 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@....com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
sumit.semwal@...aro.org, christian.koenig@....com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
vivek.kasireddy@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
yilun.xu@...el.com, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas@...ner.de, yan.y.zhao@...el.com,
daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, leon@...nel.org, zhenzhong.duan@...el.com,
tao1.su@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/12] vfio/pci: Create host unaccessible dma-buf for
private device
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:41:58PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> I don't have a complete idea yet. But the goal is not to make any
> existing driver seamlessly work with secure device. It is to provide a
> generic way for bind/attestation/accept, and may save driver's effort
> if they don't care about this startup process. There are plenty of
> operations that a driver can't do to a secure device, FLR is one of
> them. The TDISP SPEC has described some general rules but some are even
> device specific.
You can FLR a secure device, it just has to be re-secured and
re-attested after. Otherwise no VFIO for you.
> So I think a driver (including VFIO) expects change to support trusted
> device, but may not have to cover bind/attestation/accept flow.
I expect changes, but not fundamental ones. VFIO will still have to
FLR devices as part of it's security architecture.
The entire flow needs to have options for drivers to be involved in
the flow, somehow.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists