| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CACycT3v6Lj61fafztOuzBNFLs2TbKeqrNLXkzv5RK6-h-iTnvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:14:28 +0800
From: Yongji Xie <xieyongji@...edance.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, bcrl@...ck.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] vduse: Implement an MMU-based IOMMU driver
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:27 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2021/3/25 下午3:38, Yongji Xie 写道:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:53 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 在 2021/3/24 下午3:39, Yongji Xie 写道:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>> 在 2021/3/15 下午1:37, Xie Yongji 写道:
> >>>>> This implements an MMU-based IOMMU driver to support mapping
> >>>>> kernel dma buffer into userspace. The basic idea behind it is
> >>>>> treating MMU (VA->PA) as IOMMU (IOVA->PA). The driver will set
> >>>>> up MMU mapping instead of IOMMU mapping for the DMA transfer so
> >>>>> that the userspace process is able to use its virtual address to
> >>>>> access the dma buffer in kernel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And to avoid security issue, a bounce-buffering mechanism is
> >>>>> introduced to prevent userspace accessing the original buffer
> >>>>> directly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c | 535 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.h | 75 +++++
> >>>>> 2 files changed, 610 insertions(+)
> >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.h
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> >>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>> index 000000000000..83de216b0e51
> >>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/iova_domain.c
> >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,535 @@
> >>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >>>>> +/*
> >>>>> + * MMU-based IOMMU implementation
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Bytedance Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
> >>>> 2021 as well.
> >>>>
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * Author: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/file.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/highmem.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >>>>> +#include <linux/vdpa.h>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +#include "iova_domain.h"
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int vduse_iotlb_add_range(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + u64 start, u64 last,
> >>>>> + u64 addr, unsigned int perm,
> >>>>> + struct file *file, u64 offset)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vdpa_map_file *map_file;
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + map_file = kmalloc(sizeof(*map_file), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >>>>> + if (!map_file)
> >>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + map_file->file = get_file(file);
> >>>>> + map_file->offset = offset;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = vhost_iotlb_add_range_ctx(domain->iotlb, start, last,
> >>>>> + addr, perm, map_file);
> >>>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>>> + fput(map_file->file);
> >>>>> + kfree(map_file);
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void vduse_iotlb_del_range(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + u64 start, u64 last)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vdpa_map_file *map_file;
> >>>>> + struct vhost_iotlb_map *map;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while ((map = vhost_iotlb_itree_first(domain->iotlb, start, last))) {
> >>>>> + map_file = (struct vdpa_map_file *)map->opaque;
> >>>>> + fput(map_file->file);
> >>>>> + kfree(map_file);
> >>>>> + vhost_iotlb_map_free(domain->iotlb, map);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +int vduse_domain_set_map(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vdpa_map_file *map_file;
> >>>>> + struct vhost_iotlb_map *map;
> >>>>> + u64 start = 0ULL, last = ULLONG_MAX;
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> + vduse_iotlb_del_range(domain, start, last);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + for (map = vhost_iotlb_itree_first(iotlb, start, last); map;
> >>>>> + map = vhost_iotlb_itree_next(map, start, last)) {
> >>>>> + map_file = (struct vdpa_map_file *)map->opaque;
> >>>>> + ret = vduse_iotlb_add_range(domain, map->start, map->last,
> >>>>> + map->addr, map->perm,
> >>>>> + map_file->file,
> >>>>> + map_file->offset);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + goto err;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +err:
> >>>>> + vduse_iotlb_del_range(domain, start, last);
> >>>>> + spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void vduse_domain_map_bounce_page(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + u64 iova, u64 size, u64 paddr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vduse_bounce_map *map;
> >>>>> + unsigned int index;
> >>>>> + u64 last = iova + size - 1;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while (iova < last) {
> >>>>> + map = &domain->bounce_maps[iova >> PAGE_SHIFT];
> >>>>> + index = offset_in_page(iova) >> IOVA_ALLOC_ORDER;
> >>>>> + map->orig_phys[index] = paddr;
> >>>>> + paddr += IOVA_ALLOC_SIZE;
> >>>>> + iova += IOVA_ALLOC_SIZE;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void vduse_domain_unmap_bounce_page(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + u64 iova, u64 size)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vduse_bounce_map *map;
> >>>>> + unsigned int index;
> >>>>> + u64 last = iova + size - 1;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while (iova < last) {
> >>>>> + map = &domain->bounce_maps[iova >> PAGE_SHIFT];
> >>>>> + index = offset_in_page(iova) >> IOVA_ALLOC_ORDER;
> >>>>> + map->orig_phys[index] = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> >>>>> + iova += IOVA_ALLOC_SIZE;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void do_bounce(phys_addr_t orig, void *addr, size_t size,
> >>>>> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + unsigned long pfn = PFN_DOWN(orig);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (PageHighMem(pfn_to_page(pfn))) {
> >>>>> + unsigned int offset = offset_in_page(orig);
> >>>>> + char *buffer;
> >>>>> + unsigned int sz = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while (size) {
> >>>>> + sz = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE - offset, size);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + buffer = kmap_atomic(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> >>>> So kmap_atomic() can autoamtically go with fast path if the page does
> >>>> not belong to highmem.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we can removce the condition and just use kmap_atomic() for all
> >>>> the cases here.
> >>>>
> >>> Looks good to me.
> >>>
> >>>>> + if (dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE)
> >>>>> + memcpy(addr, buffer + offset, sz);
> >>>>> + else
> >>>>> + memcpy(buffer + offset, addr, sz);
> >>>>> + kunmap_atomic(buffer);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + size -= sz;
> >>>>> + pfn++;
> >>>>> + addr += sz;
> >>>>> + offset = 0;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + } else if (dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) {
> >>>>> + memcpy(addr, phys_to_virt(orig), size);
> >>>>> + } else {
> >>>>> + memcpy(phys_to_virt(orig), addr, size);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void vduse_domain_bounce(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain,
> >>>>> + dma_addr_t iova, size_t size,
> >>>>> + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct vduse_bounce_map *map;
> >>>>> + unsigned int index, offset;
> >>>>> + void *addr;
> >>>>> + size_t sz;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + while (size) {
> >>>>> + map = &domain->bounce_maps[iova >> PAGE_SHIFT];
> >>>>> + offset = offset_in_page(iova);
> >>>>> + sz = min_t(size_t, IOVA_ALLOC_SIZE, size);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (map->bounce_page &&
> >>>>> + map->orig_phys[index] != INVALID_PHYS_ADDR) {
> >>>>> + addr = page_address(map->bounce_page) + offset;
> >>>>> + index = offset >> IOVA_ALLOC_ORDER;
> >>>>> + do_bounce(map->orig_phys[index], addr, sz, dir);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + size -= sz;
> >>>>> + iova += sz;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static struct page *
> >>>>> +vduse_domain_get_mapping_page(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain, u64 iova)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + u64 start = iova & PAGE_MASK;
> >>>>> + u64 last = start + PAGE_SIZE - 1;
> >>>>> + struct vhost_iotlb_map *map;
> >>>>> + struct page *page = NULL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> + map = vhost_iotlb_itree_first(domain->iotlb, start, last);
> >>>>> + if (!map)
> >>>>> + goto out;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + page = pfn_to_page((map->addr + iova - map->start) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> >>>>> + get_page(page);
> >>>>> +out:
> >>>>> + spin_unlock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return page;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static struct page *
> >>>>> +vduse_domain_alloc_bounce_page(struct vduse_iova_domain *domain, u64 iova)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + u64 start = iova & PAGE_MASK;
> >>>>> + struct page *page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> + struct vduse_bounce_map *map;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!page)
> >>>>> + return NULL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + spin_lock(&domain->iotlb_lock);
> >>>>> + map = &domain->bounce_maps[iova >> PAGE_SHIFT];
> >>>>> + if (map->bounce_page) {
> >>>>> + __free_page(page);
> >>>>> + goto out;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + map->bounce_page = page;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* paired with vduse_domain_map_page() */
> >>>>> + smp_mb();
> >>>> So this is suspicious. It's better to explain like, we need make sure A
> >>>> must be done after B.
> >>> OK. I see. It's used to protect this pattern:
> >>>
> >>> vduse_domain_alloc_bounce_page: vduse_domain_map_page:
> >>> write map->bounce_page write map->orig_phys
> >>> mb() mb()
> >>> read map->orig_phys read map->bounce_page
> >>>
> >>> Make sure there will always be a path to do bouncing.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> And it looks to me the iotlb_lock is sufficnet to do the synchronization
> >>>> here. E.g any reason that you don't take it in
> >>>> vduse_domain_map_bounce_page().
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, we can. But the performance in multi-queue cases will go down if
> >>> we use iotlb_lock on this critical path.
> >>>
> >>>> And what's more, is there anyway to aovid holding the spinlock during
> >>>> bouncing?
> >>>>
> >>> Looks like we can't. In the case that multiple page faults happen on
> >>> the same page, we should make sure the bouncing is done before any
> >>> page fault handler returns.
> >>
> >> So it looks to me all those extra complexitiy comes from the fact that
> >> the bounce_page and orig_phys are set by different places so we need to
> >> do the bouncing in two places.
> >>
> >> I wonder how much we can gain from the "lazy" boucning in page fault.
> >> The buffer mapped via dma_ops from virtio driver is expected to be
> >> accessed by the userspace soon. It looks to me we can do all those
> >> stuffs during dma_map() then things would be greatly simplified.
> >>
> > If so, we need to allocate lots of pages from the pool reserved for
> > atomic memory allocation requests.
>
>
> This should be fine, a lot of drivers tries to allocate pages in atomic
> context. The point is to simplify the codes to make it easy to
> determince the correctness so we can add optimization on top simply by
> benchmarking the difference.
>
OK. I will use this way in the next version.
> E.g we have serveral places that accesses orig_phys:
>
> 1) map_page(), write
> 2) unmap_page(), write
> 3) page fault handler, read
>
> It's not clear to me how they were synchronized. Or if it was
> synchronzied implicitly (via iova allocator?), we'd better document it.
Yes.
> Or simply use spinlock (which is the preferrable way I'd like to go). We
> probably don't need to worry too much about the cost of spinlock since
> iova allocater use it heavily.
>
Actually iova allocator implements a per-CPU cache to optimize it.
Thanks,
Yongji
Powered by blists - more mailing lists