Re: [PATCH 5/5] virtio: Add bounce DMA ops

Stefano Stabellini
2020-04-28T23:04:38Z

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:19:52PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> [2020-04-28 12:17:57]:
> >
> > > Okay, but how is all this virtio specific? For example, why not allow
> > > separate swiotlbs for any type of device?
> > > For example, this might make sense if a given device is from a
> > > different, less trusted vendor.
> >
> > Is swiotlb commonly used for multiple devices that may be on different trust
> > boundaries (and not behind a hardware iommu)?

The trust boundary is not a good way of describing the scenario and I
think it leads to miscommunication.

A better way to describe the scenario would be that the device can only
DMA to/from a small reserved-memory region advertised on device tree.

Do we have other instances of devices that can only DMA to/from very
specific and non-configurable address ranges? If so, this series could
follow their example.

> Even a hardware iommu does not imply a 100% security from malicious
> hardware. First lots of people use iommu=pt for performance reasons.
> Second even without pt, unmaps are often batched, and sub-page buffers
> might be used for DMA, so we are not 100% protected at all times.