Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] PCI: add SIOV and IMS capability detection

Jason Gunthorpe
2020-11-10T14:19:18Z

On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:14:12PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:

> There are multiple tools (such as logic analyzers) and OEM test validation
> harnesses that depend on such DWORD sized DMA writes with no PASID as interrupt
> messages. One of the feedback we had received in the development of the
> specification was to avoid impacting such tools irrespective of
> MSI-X or IMS

This is a really bad reason to make a poor decision for system
security. Relying on trapping/emulation increases the attack surface
and complexity of the VMM and the device which now have to create this
artificial split, which does not exist in SRIOV.

Hopefully we won't see devices get this wrong, but any path that
allows the guest to cause the device to create TLPs outside its IOMMU
containment is security worrysome.

> was used for interrupt message storage (on the wire they follow the
> same format), and also to ensure interoperability of devices
> supporting IMS across CPU vendors (who may not support PASID TLP
> prefix). This is one reason that led to interrupts from IMS to not
> use PASID (and match the wire format of MSI/MSI-X generated
> interrupts). The other problem was disambiguation between DMA to
> SVM v/s interrupts.

This is a defect in the IOMMU, not something fundamental.

The IOMMU needs to know if the interrupt range is active or not for
each PASID. Process based SVA will, of course, not enable interrupts
on the PASID, VM Guest based PASID will.

> Intel had published the specification almost 2 years back and have
> comprehended all the feedback received from the ecosystem
> (both open-source and others), along with offering the specification
> to be implemented by any vendors (both device and CPU vendors).
> There are few device vendors who are implementing to the spec already and
> are being explored for support by other CPU vendors

Which is why it is such a shame that including PASID in the MSI was
deliberately skipped in the document, the ecosystem could have been
much aligned to this solution by now :(

Jason