linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/38] ARM CCA Device Assignment support

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: <20250805184219.GZ26511@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 15:42:19 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aik@....com, lukas@...ner.de, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...osinc.com>,
	Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/38] ARM CCA Device Assignment support

On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 11:27:36AM -0700, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> > > Clearing any of the following bits causes the TDI hosted
> > > by the Function to transition to ERROR:
> > > 
> > > • Memory Space Enable
> > > • Bus Master Enable
> > 
> > Oh that's nice, yeah!
> 
> That is useful, but an unmodified PCI driver is going to make separate
> calls to pci_set_master() and pci_enable_device() so it should still be
> the case that those need to be trapped out of the concern that
> writing back zero for a read-modify-write also trips the error state on
> some device that fails the Robustness Principle.

I hope we don't RMW BME and MSE in some weird way like that :(
 
> > Here is where I feel the VMM should be trapping this and NOPing it, or
> > failing that the guest PCI Core should NOP it.
> 
> At this point (vfio shutdown path) the VMM is committed stopping guest
> operations with the device. So ok not to not NOP in this specific path,
> right?

What I said in my other mail was the the T=1 state should have nothing
to do with driver binding. So unbinding vfio should leave the device
in the RUN state just fine.

> > With the ideal version being the TSM and VMM would be able to block
> > the iommu as a functional stand in for BME.
> 
> The TSM block for BME is the LOCKED or ERROR state. That would be in
> conflict with the proposal that the device stays in the RUN state on
> guest driver unbind.

This is a different thing. Leaving RUN says the OS (especially
userspace) does not trust the device.

Disabling DMA, on explict trusted request from the cVM, is entirely
fine to do inside the T=1 state. PCI made it so the only way to do
this is with the IOMMU, oh well, so be it.

> I feel like either the device stays in RUN state and BME leaks, or the
> device is returned to LOCKED on driver unbind. 

Stay in RUN is my vote. I can't really defend the other choice from a
linux driver model perspective.

> Otherwise a functional stand-in for BME that also keeps the device
> in RUN state feels like a TSM feature request for a "RUN but
> BLOCKED" state.

Yes, and probably not necessary, more of a defence against bugs in
depth kind of request. For Linux we would like it if the device can be
in RUN and have DMA blocked off during all times when no driver is
attached.

Jason