Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio_ring: Use DMA API if guest memory is encrypted

Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-08-10T18:58:46Z

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:08:12PM -0200, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> With Christoph's rework of the DMA API that recently landed, the patch
> below is the only change needed in virtio to make it work in a POWER
> secure guest under the ultravisor.
>
> The other change we need (making sure the device's dma_map_ops is NULL
> so that the dma-direct/swiotlb code is used) can be made in
> powerpc-specific code.
>
> Of course, I also have patches (soon to be posted as RFC) which hook up
> <linux/mem_encrypt.h> to the powerpc secure guest support code.
>
> What do you think?
>
> >From d0629a36a75c678b4a72b853f8f7f8c17eedd6b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 22:08:02 -0200
> Subject: [RFC PATCH] virtio_ring: Use DMA API if guest memory is encrypted
>
> The host can't access the guest memory when it's encrypted, so using
> regular memory pages for the ring isn't an option. Go through the DMA API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index cd7e755484e3..321a27075380 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -259,8 +259,11 @@ static bool vring_use_dma_api(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> * not work without an even larger kludge. Instead, enable
> * the DMA API if we're a Xen guest, which at least allows
> * all of the sensible Xen configurations to work correctly.
> + *
> + * Also, if guest memory is encrypted the host can't access
> + * it directly. In this case, we'll need to use the DMA API.
> */
> - if (xen_domain())
> + if (xen_domain() || sev_active())
> return true;
>
> return false;

So I gave this lots of thought, and I'm coming round to
basically accepting something very similar to this patch.

But not exactly like this :).

Let's see what are the requirements.

If

1. We do not trust the device (so we want to use a bounce buffer with it)
2. DMA address is also a physical address of a buffer

then we should use DMA API with virtio.

sev_active() above is one way to put (1). I can't say I love it but
it's tolerable.

But we also want promise from DMA API about 2.

Without promise 2 we simply can't use DMA API with a legacy device.

Otherwise, on a SEV system with an IOMMU which isn't 1:1
and with a virtio device without ACCESS_PLATFORM, we are trying
to pass a virtual address, and devices without ACCESS_PLATFORM
can only access CPU physical addresses.

So something like:

dma_addr_is_phys_addr?

--
MST