From: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: yi.l.liu@intel.com, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
"Kirti Wankhede" <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Lu Baolu" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:39:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210617113935.05c1b77c@yiliu-dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210616133937.59050e1a.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:39:37 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:43:23 +0000
> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:12 AM
> > >
> > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 02:31:39 +0000
> > > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:28 AM
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > IOASID. Today the group fd requires an IOASID before it hands out a
> > > > > > device_fd. With iommu_fd the device_fd will not allow IOCTLs until it
> > > > > > has a blocked DMA IOASID and is successefully joined to an iommu_fd.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is the root of my concern. Who owns ioctls to the device fd?
> > > > > It's my understanding this is a vfio provided file descriptor and it's
> > > > > therefore vfio's responsibility. A device-level IOASID interface
> > > > > therefore requires that vfio manage the group aspect of device access.
> > > > > AFAICT, that means that device access can therefore only begin when all
> > > > > devices for a given group are attached to the IOASID and must halt for
> > > > > all devices in the group if any device is ever detached from an IOASID,
> > > > > even temporarily. That suggests a lot more oversight of the IOASIDs by
> > > > > vfio than I'd prefer.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is possibly the point that is worthy of more clarification and
> > > > alignment, as it sounds like the root of controversy here.
> > > >
> > > > I feel the goal of vfio group management is more about ownership, i.e.
> > > > all devices within a group must be assigned to a single user. Following
> > > > the three rules defined by Jason, what we really care is whether a group
> > > > of devices can be isolated from the rest of the world, i.e. no access to
> > > > memory/device outside of its security context and no access to its
> > > > security context from devices outside of this group. This can be achieved
> > > > as long as every device in the group is either in block-DMA state when
> > > > it's not attached to any security context or attached to an IOASID context
> > > > in IOMMU fd.
> > > >
> > > > As long as group-level isolation is satisfied, how devices within a group
> > > > are further managed is decided by the user (unattached, all attached to
> > > > same IOASID, attached to different IOASIDs) as long as the user
> > > > understands the implication of lacking of isolation within the group. This
> > > > is what a device-centric model comes to play. Misconfiguration just hurts
> > > > the user itself.
> > > >
> > > > If this rationale can be agreed, then I didn't see the point of having VFIO
> > > > to mandate all devices in the group must be attached/detached in
> > > > lockstep.
> > >
> > > In theory this sounds great, but there are still too many assumptions
> > > and too much hand waving about where isolation occurs for me to feel
> > > like I really have the complete picture. So let's walk through some
> > > examples. Please fill in and correct where I'm wrong.
> >
> > Thanks for putting these examples. They are helpful for clearing the
> > whole picture.
> >
> > Before filling in let's first align on what is the key difference between
> > current VFIO model and this new proposal. With this comparison we'll
> > know which of following questions are answered with existing VFIO
> > mechanism and which are handled differently.
> >
> > With Yi's help we figured out the current mechanism:
> >
> > 1) vfio_group_viable. The code comment explains the intention clearly:
> >
> > --
> > * A vfio group is viable for use by userspace if all devices are in
> > * one of the following states:
> > * - driver-less
> > * - bound to a vfio driver
> > * - bound to an otherwise allowed driver
> > * - a PCI interconnect device
> > --
> >
> > Note this check is not related to an IOMMU security context.
>
> Because this is a pre-requisite for imposing that IOMMU security
> context.
>
> > 2) vfio_iommu_group_notifier. When an IOMMU_GROUP_NOTIFY_
> > BOUND_DRIVER event is notified, vfio_group_viable is re-evaluated.
> > If the affected group was previously viable but now becomes not
> > viable, BUG_ON() as it implies that this device is bound to a non-vfio
> > driver which breaks the group isolation.
>
> This notifier action is conditional on there being users of devices
> within a secure group IOMMU context.
>
> > 3) vfio_group_get_device_fd. User can acquire a device fd only after
> > a) the group is viable;
> > b) the group is attached to a container;
> > c) iommu is set on the container (implying a security context
> > established);
>
> The order is actually b) a) c) but arguably b) is a no-op until:
>
> d) a device fd is provided to the user
Per the code in QEMU vfio_get_group(). The order is a) b) c). In
vfio_connect_container(), group is attached to a container.
1959 VFIOGroup *vfio_get_group(int groupid, AddressSpace *as, Error **errp)
1960 {
...
1978 group = g_malloc0(sizeof(*group));
1979
1980 snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "/dev/vfio/%d", groupid);
1981 group->fd = qemu_open_old(path, O_RDWR);
1982 if (group->fd < 0) {
1983 error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "failed to open %s", path);
1984 goto free_group_exit;
1985 }
1986
1987 if (ioctl(group->fd, VFIO_GROUP_GET_STATUS, &status)) {
1988 error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "failed to get group %d status", groupid);
1989 goto close_fd_exit;
1990 }
1991
1992 if (!(status.flags & VFIO_GROUP_FLAGS_VIABLE)) {
1993 error_setg(errp, "group %d is not viable", groupid);
1994 error_append_hint(errp,
1995 "Please ensure all devices within the iommu_group "
1996 "are bound to their vfio bus driver.\n");
1997 goto close_fd_exit;
1998 }
1999
2000 group->groupid = groupid;
2001 QLIST_INIT(&group->device_list);
2002
2003 if (vfio_connect_container(group, as, errp)) {
2004 error_prepend(errp, "failed to setup container for group %d: ",
2005 groupid);
2006 goto close_fd_exit;
2007 }
2008
...
2024 }
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-17 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 2:58 Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2 Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 8:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 9:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 10:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 9:01 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-06-09 9:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 12:24 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 12:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 13:32 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 15:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 15:51 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 16:15 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 16:27 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 18:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-10 15:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-11 0:58 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-11 21:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 3:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-14 3:22 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 1:05 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-14 13:38 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 1:21 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 6:53 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-24 4:50 ` David Gibson
2021-06-11 16:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-11 19:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-12 1:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-12 16:57 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 14:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 16:28 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 2:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 16:12 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 6:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-16 19:39 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-17 3:39 ` Liu Yi L [this message]
2021-06-17 7:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-17 21:14 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-18 0:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 16:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-18 18:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-25 10:27 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-25 14:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 1:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 22:31 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 22:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 23:09 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 23:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-29 0:26 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:28 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 2:03 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 14:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 6:45 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 16:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:26 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 5:59 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-24 12:22 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 4:23 ` David Gibson
2021-06-18 0:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 13:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-18 15:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 15:37 ` Raj, Ashok
2021-06-18 15:51 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-24 4:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 11:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 0:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-17 5:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 5:02 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 23:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:37 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 11:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-10 5:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17 5:22 ` David Gibson
2021-06-18 5:21 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 4:03 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 13:42 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17 4:45 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 23:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:07 ` David Gibson
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=20210617113935.05c1b77c@yiliu-dev \
--to=yi.l.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=hao.wu@intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@metux.net \
--cc=lushenming@huawei.com \
--cc=parav@mellanox.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox