netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 mlx5-next 12/14] vfio/mlx5: Implement vfio

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: <87wnlwb9o3.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:57:16 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        saeedm@...dia.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, leonro@...dia.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, mgurtovoy@...dia.com, maorg@...dia.com,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mlx5-next 12/14] vfio/mlx5: Implement vfio_pci driver
 for mlx5 devices

On Thu, Oct 28 2021, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:30:35AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:23:45 -0300
>> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:05:20PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > 
>> > > > As far as the actual issue, if you hadn't just discovered it now
>> > > > nobody would have known we have this gap - much like how the very
>> > > > similar reset issue was present in VFIO for so many years until you
>> > > > plugged it.  
>> > > 
>> > > But the fact that we did discover it is hugely important.  We've
>> > > identified that the potential use case is significantly limited and
>> > > that userspace doesn't have a good mechanism to determine when to
>> > > expose that limitation to the user.    
>> > 
>> > Huh?
>> > 
>> > We've identified that, depending on device behavior, the kernel may
>> > need to revoke MMIO access to protect itself from hostile userspace
>> > triggering TLP Errors or something.
>> > 
>> > Well behaved userspace must already stop touching the MMIO on the
>> > device when !RUNNING - I see no compelling argument against that
>> > position.
>> 
>> Not touching MMIO is not specified in our uAPI protocol,
>
> To be frank, not much is specified in the uAPI comment, certainly not
> a detailed meaning of RUNNING.

Yes! And I think that means we need to improve that comment before the
first in-tree driver to use it is merged, just to make sure we all agree
on the protocol, and future drivers can rely on that understanding as
well.