From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] virtio: fix feature negotiation for ACCESS_PLATFORM
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 17:12:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wnh1hjm1.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220307112939.2780117-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On Mon, Mar 07 2022, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Unlike most virtio features ACCESS_PLATFORM is considered mandatory by
> QEMU, i.e. the driver must accept it if offered by the device. The
> virtio specification says that the driver SHOULD accept the
> ACCESS_PLATFORM feature if offered, and that the device MAY fail to
> operate if ACCESS_PLATFORM was offered but not negotiated.
>
> While a SHOULD ain't exactly a MUST, we are certainly allowed to fail
> the device when the driver fences ACCESS_PLATFORM. With commit
> 2943b53f68 ("virtio: force VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM") we already made the
> decision to do so whenever the get_dma_as() callback is implemented (by
> the bus), which in practice means for the entirety of virtio-pci.
>
> That means, if the device needs to translate I/O addresses, then
> ACCESS_PLATFORM is mandatory. The aforementioned commit tells us in the
> commit message that this is for security reasons. More precisely if we
> were to allow a less then trusted driver (e.g. an user-space driver, or
> a nested guest) to make the device bypass the IOMMU by not negotiating
> ACCESS_PLATFORM, then the guest kernel would have no ability to
> control/police (by programming the IOMMU) what pieces of guest memory
> the driver may manipulate using the device. Which would break security
> assumptions within the guest.
>
> If ACCESS_PLATFORM is offered not because we want the device to utilize
> an IOMMU and do address translation, but because the device does not
> have access to the entire guest RAM, and needs the driver to grant
> access to the bits it needs access to (e.g. confidential guest support),
> we still require the guest to have the corresponding logic and to accept
> ACCESS_PLATFORM. If the driver does not accept ACCESS_PLATFORM, then
> things are bound to go wrong, and we may see failures much less graceful
> than failing the device because the driver didn't negotiate
> ACCESS_PLATFORM.
>
> So let us make ACCESS_PLATFORM mandatory for the driver regardless
> of whether the get_dma_as() callback is implemented or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: 2943b53f68 ("virtio: force VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM")
>
> ---
> v2 -> v3:
> * Rebased onto the next branch of the git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/mst/qemu.git
> repository
> v1 -> v2:
> * Change comment: reflect that this is not about the verify
> but also about the device features as seen by the driver (Connie)
> RFC -> v1:
> * Tweaked the commit message and fixed typos (Connie)
> * Added two sentences discussing the security implications (Michael)
>
> This patch is based on:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg866199.html
>
> During the review of "virtio: fix the condition for iommu_platform not
> supported" Daniel raised the question why do we "force IOMMU_PLATFORM"
> iff has_iommu && !!klass->get_dma_as. My answer to that was, that
> this logic ain't right.
>
> While at it I used the opportunity to re-organize the code a little
> and provide an explanatory comment.
> ---
> hw/virtio/virtio-bus.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-10 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-07 11:29 [PATCH v3 1/1] virtio: fix feature negotiation for ACCESS_PLATFORM Halil Pasic
2022-03-10 13:50 ` Halil Pasic
2022-03-10 15:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-10 16:12 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87wnh1hjm1.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.