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

Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-07-15T14:35:53Z

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:51:18AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:58:40PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:13:59PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:42:00PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> >> >> >> I rephrased it in terms of address translation. What do you think of
> >> >> >> this version? The flag name is slightly different too:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_NO_TRANSLATION This feature has the same
> >> >> >> meaning as VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM both when set and when not set,
> >> >> >> with the exception that address translation is guaranteed to be
> >> >> >> unnecessary when accessing memory addresses supplied to the device
> >> >> >> by the driver. Which is to say, the device will always use physical
> >> >> >> addresses matching addresses used by the driver (typically meaning
> >> >> >> physical addresses used by the CPU) and not translated further. This
> >> >> >> flag should be set by the guest if offered, but to allow for
> >> >> >> backward-compatibility device implementations allow for it to be
> >> >> >> left unset by the guest. It is an error to set both this flag and
> >> >> >> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > OK so VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is designed to allow unpriveledged
> >> >> > drivers. This is why devices fail when it's not negotiated.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just to clarify, what do you mean by unprivileged drivers? Is it drivers
> >> >> implemented in guest userspace such as with VFIO? Or unprivileged in
> >> >> some other sense such as needing to use bounce buffers for some reason?
> >> >
> >> > I had drivers in guest userspace in mind.
> >>
> >> Great. Thanks for clarifying.
> >>
> >> I don't think this flag would work for guest userspace drivers. Should I
> >> add a note about that in the flag definition?
> >
> > I think you need to clarify access protection rules. Is it only
> > translation that is bypassed or is any platform-specific
> > protection mechanism bypassed too?
>
> It is only translation. In a secure guest, if the device tries to access
> a memory address that wasn't provided by the driver then the
> architecture will deny that access. If the device accesses addresses
> provided to it by the driver, then there's no protection mechanism or
> translation to get in the way.
>
> >> >> > This confuses me.
> >> >> > If driver is unpriveledged then what happens with this flag?
> >> >> > It can supply any address it wants. Will that corrupt kernel
> >> >> > memory?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not needing address translation doesn't necessarily mean that there's no
> >> >> IOMMU. On powerpc we don't use VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM but there's
> >> >> always an IOMMU present. And we also support VFIO drivers. The VFIO API
> >> >> for pseries (sPAPR section in Documentation/vfio.txt) has extra ioctls
> >> >> to program the IOMMU.
> >> >>
> >> >> For our use case, we don't need address translation because we set up an
> >> >> identity mapping in the IOMMU so that the device can use guest physical
> >> >> addresses.
> >
> > OK so I think I am beginning to see it in a different light. Right now the specific
> > platform creates an identity mapping. That in turn means DMA API can be
> > fast - it does not need to do anything. What you are looking for is a
> > way to tell host it's an identity mapping - just as an optimization.
> >
> > Is that right?
>
> Almost. Theoretically it is just an optimization. But in practice the
> pseries boot firmware (SLOF) doesn't support IOMMU_PLATFORM so it's not
> possible to boot a guest from a device with that flag set.
>
> > So this is what I would call this option:
> >
> > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_IDENTITY_ADDRESS
> >
> > and the explanation should state that all device
> > addresses are translated by the platform to identical
> > addresses.
> >
> > In fact this option then becomes more, not less restrictive
> > than VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM - it's a promise
> > by guest to only create identity mappings,
> > and only before driver_ok is set.
> > This option then would always be negotiated together with
> > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM.
> >
> > Host then must verify that
> > 1. full 1:1 mappings are created before driver_ok
> > or can we make sure this happens before features_ok?
> > that would be ideal as we could require that features_ok fails
> > 2. mappings are not modified between driver_ok and reset
> > i guess attempts to change them will fail -
> > possibly by causing a guest crash
> > or some other kind of platform-specific error
>
> I think VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_IDENTITY_ADDRESS is good, but requiring
> it to be accompanied by ACCESS_PLATFORM can be a problem. One reason is
> SLOF as I mentioned above, another is that we would be requiring all
> guests running on the machine (secure guests or not, since we would use
> the same configuration for all guests) to support it. But
> ACCESS_PLATFORM is relatively recent so it's a bit early for that. For
> instance, Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (which is still supported) doesn't know about
> it and wouldn't be able to use the device.

OK and your target is to enable use with kernel drivers within
guests, right?
My question is, we are defining a new flag here, I guess old guests
then do not set it. How does it help old guests? Or maybe it's
not designed to ...

> > So far so good, but now a question:
> >
> > how are we handling guest address width limitations?
> > Is VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_IDENTITY_ADDRESS subject to
> > guest address width limitations?
> > I am guessing we can make them so ...
> > This needs to be documented.
>
> I'm not sure. I will get back to you on this.
>
> >> > And can it access any guest physical address?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I was mistaken. We do support VFIO in guests but not for virtio
> >> devices, only for regular PCI devices. In which case they will use
> >> address translation.
> >
> > Not sure how this answers the question.
>
> Because I had said that we had VFIO virtio drivers, you asked:
>
> > >> > This confuses me.
> > >> > If driver is unpriveledged then what happens with this flag?
> > >> > It can supply any address it wants. Will that corrupt kernel
> > >> > memory?
>
> Since we can't actually have VFIO virtio drivers, there's nothing to
> corrupt the kernel memory.
>
> >> >> If the guest kernel is concerned that an unprivileged driver could
> >> >> jeopardize its integrity it should not negotiate this feature flag.
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately flag negotiation is done through config space
> >> > and so can be overwritten by the driver.
> >>
> >> Ok, so the guest kernel has to forbid VFIO access on devices where this
> >> flag is advertised.
> >
> > That's possible in theory but in practice we did not yet teach VFIO not
> > to attach to legacy devices without VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM. So all
> > security relies on host denying driver_ok without
> > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM. New options that bypass guest security are
> > thus tricky as they can create security holes for existing guests.
> > I'm open to ideas about how to do this in a safe way,
>
> If the new flag isn't coupled with ACCESS_PLATFORM then the existing
> mechanism of the host denying driver_ok when ACCESS_PLATFORM isn't set
> will be enough.
>
> >> >> Perhaps there should be a note about this in the flag definition? This
> >> >> concern is platform-dependant though. I don't believe it's an issue in
> >> >> pseries.
> >> >
> >> > Again ACCESS_PLATFORM has a pretty open definition. It does actually
> >> > say it's all up to the platform.
> >> >
> >> > Specifically how will VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_NO_TRANSLATION be
> >> > implemented portably? virtio has no portable way to know
> >> > whether DMA API bypasses translation.
> >>
> >> The fact that VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM_NO_TRANSLATION is set
> >> communicates that knowledge to virtio. There is a shared understanding
> >> between the guest and the host about what this flag being set means.
> >
> > Right but I wonder how are you going to *actually* implement it on Linux?
> > Are you adding a new set of DMA APIs that do everything except
> > translation?
>
> Actually it's the opposite. There's nothing to do in the guest besides
> setting up SWIOTLB and sharing its buffer with the host.
>
> Normally on pseries, devices use the dma_iommu_ops defined in
> arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-iommu.c. I have a patch which changes the
> device's dma_ops to NULL so that the default DMA path will be used:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20190713060023.8479-12-bauerman@linux.ibm.com/
>
> Then another patch forces use of SWIOTLB and defines the
> set_memory_{encrypted,decrypted} functions so that SWIOTLB can make its
> buffer be shared with the host:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20190713060023.8479-13-bauerman@linux.ibm.com/
>
> --
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center