[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5276424BAA968DF29C3D4B8F8CAA2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 05:22:49 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage@....com>, Alex Williamson
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nd <nd@....com>, Philipp Stanner
<pstanner@...hat.com>, Yunxiang Li <Yunxiang.Li@....com>, "Dr. David Alan
Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>, Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>, "open
list:VFIO DRIVER" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Dhruv Tripathi
<Dhruv.Tripathi@....com>, "Nagarahalli, Honnappa"
<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@....com>, Jeremy Linton <Jeremy.Linton@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] vfio/pci: add PCIe TPH to device feature ioctl
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 10:12 PM
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 07:53:17AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
> > Probably we should not allow device-specific mode unless the user is
> > capable of CAP_SYS_RAWIO? It allows an user to pollute caches on
> > CPUs which its processes are not affined to, hence could easily break
> > SLAs which CSPs try to achieve...
>
> I'm not sure this is within the threat model for VFIO though..
>
> qemu or the operator needs to deal with this by not permiting such
> HW to go into a VM.
it could be used by native app e.g. dpdk.
>
> Really we can't block device specific mode anyhow because we can't
> even discover it on the kernel side..
>
hmm the TPH capability reports which steering modes (no st,
irq vector, or device specific) are supported by a device. and the
mode must be selected explicitly when sw enables the capability.
so policy-wise vfio could advocate/enforce that only the interrupt
vector mode is supported for non-privileged users.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists