From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([125.16.236.5]:55934 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754614AbcEEN3I (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2016 09:29:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 5 May 2016 18:59:05 +0530 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap MSI-X table if interrupt remapping is supported To: "Tian, Kevin" , David Laight , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" References: <1461761010-5452-1-git-send-email-xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1461761010-5452-6-git-send-email-xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F4B52B5@AcuExch.aculab.com> <4be013bc-e81b-84c5-06d3-e1b3f46b3227@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "aik@ozlabs.ru" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , "paulus@samba.org" , "mpe@ellerman.id.au" , "joro@8bytes.org" , "warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "eric.auger@linaro.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "alistair@popple.id.au" , "ruscur@russell.cc" From: Yongji Xie Message-ID: <90cc2e8c-be18-45de-ffff-fad313d49f81@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:28:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2016/5/5 20:15, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Yongji Xie [mailto:xyjxie@linux.vnet.ibm.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 7:43 PM >> >> Hi David and Kevin, >> >> On 2016/5/5 17:54, David Laight wrote: >> >>> From: Tian, Kevin >>>> Sent: 05 May 2016 10:37 >>> ... >>>>> Acutually, we are not aimed at accessing MSI-X table from >>>>> guest. So I think it's safe to passthrough MSI-X table if we >>>>> can make sure guest kernel would not touch MSI-X table in >>>>> normal code path such as para-virtualized guest kernel on PPC64. >>>>> >>>> Then how do you prevent malicious guest kernel accessing it? >>> Or a malicious guest driver for an ethernet card setting up >>> the receive buffer ring to contain a single word entry that >>> contains the address associated with an MSI-X interrupt and >>> then using a loopback mode to cause a specific packet be >>> received that writes the required word through that address. >>> >>> Remember the PCIe cycle for an interrupt is a normal memory write >>> cycle. >>> >>> David >>> >> If we have enough permission to load a malicious driver or >> kernel, we can easily break the guest without exposed >> MSI-X table. >> >> I think it should be safe to expose MSI-X table if we can >> make sure that malicious guest driver/kernel can't use >> the MSI-X table to break other guest or host. The >> capability of IRQ remapping could provide this >> kind of protection. >> > With IRQ remapping it doesn't mean you can pass through MSI-X > structure to guest. I know actual IRQ remapping might be platform > specific, but at least for Intel VT-d specification, MSI-X entry must > be configured with a remappable format by host kernel which > contains an index into IRQ remapping table. The index will find a > IRQ remapping entry which controls interrupt routing for a specific > device. If you allow a malicious program random index into MSI-X > entry of assigned device, the hole is obvious... Do you mean we can trigger MSIs that correspond to interrupt IDs of other devices by writing to MSI-X table although IRQ remapping is enabled? On PPC64, there is a mapping between MSIs and PE num which can be used to identify a PCI device on PHB. So the hardware can ensure a given pci device can only shoot the MSIs assigned for it. Isn't there a similar mapping in IRQ remapping table on Intel. Thanks, Yongji > Above might make sense only for a IRQ remapping implementation > which doesn't rely on extended MSI-X format (e.g. simply based on > BDF). If that's the case for PPC, then you should build MSI-X > passthrough based on this fact instead of general IRQ remapping > enabled or not. > > Thanks > Kevin