Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] iommufd: Fault-capable hwpt attach/detach/replace

Baolu Lu
2024-07-10T08:36:12Z

On 2024/7/10 1:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 01:55:12PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/6/29 5:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 02:11:52PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> +static int iommufd_fault_iopf_enable(struct iommufd_device *idev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device *dev = idev->dev;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Once we turn on PCI/PRI support for VF, the response failure code
>>>> + * should not be forwarded to the hardware due to PRI being a shared
>>>> + * resource between PF and VFs. There is no coordination for this
>>>> + * shared capability. This waits for a vPRI reset to recover.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (dev_is_pci(dev) && to_pci_dev(dev)->is_virtfn)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> I don't quite get this remark, isn't not supporting PRI on VFs kind of
>>> useless? What is the story here?
>> This remark is trying to explain why attaching an iopf-capable hwpt to a
>> VF is not supported for now. The PCI sepc (section 10.4.2.1) states that
>> a response failure will disable the PRI on the function. But for PF/VF
>> case, the PRI is a shared resource, therefore a response failure on a VF
>> might cause iopf on other VFs to malfunction. So, we start from simple
>> by not allowing it.
> You are talking about IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE ?
>
> But this is bad already, something like SVA could trigger
> IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE on a VF without iommufd today. Due to memory
> allocation failure in iommu_report_device_fault()
>
> And then we pass in code from userspace and blindly cast it to
> enum iommu_page_response_code ?
>
> Probably we should just only support IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS/INVALID
> from userspace and block FAILURE entirely. Probably the VMM should
> emulate FAILURE by disabling PRI on by changing to a non PRI domain.
>
> And this subtle uABI leak needs a fix:
>
> iopf_group_response(group, response.code);
>
> response.code and enum iommu_page_response_code are different
> enums, and there is no range check. Need a static assert at least and
> a range check. Send a followup patch please

Yes, sure.

Thanks,
baolu