From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:52:39 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210618005239.GB1987166@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB18865DF9C50F295820D038798C0E9@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 07:31:03AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > Yes. function 1 is block-DMA while function 0 still attached to IOASID.
> > > Actually unbind from IOMMU fd doesn't change the security context.
> > > the change is conducted when attaching/detaching device to/from an
> > > IOASID.
> >
> > But I think you're suggesting that the IOMMU context is simply the
> > device's default domain, so vfio is left in the position where the user
> > gained access to the device by binding it to an iommu_fd, but now the
> > device exists outside of the iommu_fd.
I don't think unbind should be allowed. Close the fd and re-open it if
you want to attach to a different iommu_fd.
> > to gate device access on binding the device to the iommu_fd? The user
> > can get an accessible device_fd unbound from an iommu_fd on the reverse
> > path.
>
> yes, binding to iommu_fd is not the appropriate point of gating
> device access.
Binding is the only point we have enough information to make a
full security decision. Device FDs that are not bound must be
inoperable until bound.
The complexities with revoking mmap/etc are what lead me to conclude
that unbind is not worth doing - we can't go back to an inoperable
state very easially.
> Yes, that was the original impression. But after figuring out the new
> block-DMA behavior, I'm not sure whether /dev/iommu must maintain
> its own group integrity check. If it trusts vfio, I feel it's fine to avoid
> such check which even allows a group of devices bound to different
> IOMMU fd's if user likes. Also if we want to sustain the current vfio
> semantics which doesn't require all devices in the group bound to
> vfio driver, seems it's pointless to enforce such integrity check in
> /dev/iommu.
>
> Jason, what's your opinion?
I think the iommu code should do all of this, I don't see why vfio
should be dealing with *iommu* isolation.
The rest of this email got a bit long for me to catch up on, sorry :\
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>,
"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:52:39 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210618005239.GB1987166@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB18865DF9C50F295820D038798C0E9@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 07:31:03AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > Yes. function 1 is block-DMA while function 0 still attached to IOASID.
> > > Actually unbind from IOMMU fd doesn't change the security context.
> > > the change is conducted when attaching/detaching device to/from an
> > > IOASID.
> >
> > But I think you're suggesting that the IOMMU context is simply the
> > device's default domain, so vfio is left in the position where the user
> > gained access to the device by binding it to an iommu_fd, but now the
> > device exists outside of the iommu_fd.
I don't think unbind should be allowed. Close the fd and re-open it if
you want to attach to a different iommu_fd.
> > to gate device access on binding the device to the iommu_fd? The user
> > can get an accessible device_fd unbound from an iommu_fd on the reverse
> > path.
>
> yes, binding to iommu_fd is not the appropriate point of gating
> device access.
Binding is the only point we have enough information to make a
full security decision. Device FDs that are not bound must be
inoperable until bound.
The complexities with revoking mmap/etc are what lead me to conclude
that unbind is not worth doing - we can't go back to an inoperable
state very easially.
> Yes, that was the original impression. But after figuring out the new
> block-DMA behavior, I'm not sure whether /dev/iommu must maintain
> its own group integrity check. If it trusts vfio, I feel it's fine to avoid
> such check which even allows a group of devices bound to different
> IOMMU fd's if user likes. Also if we want to sustain the current vfio
> semantics which doesn't require all devices in the group bound to
> vfio driver, seems it's pointless to enforce such integrity check in
> /dev/iommu.
>
> Jason, what's your opinion?
I think the iommu code should do all of this, I don't see why vfio
should be dealing with *iommu* isolation.
The rest of this email got a bit long for me to catch up on, sorry :\
Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 0:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 162+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-07 2:58 Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2 Tian, Kevin
2021-06-07 2:58 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 8:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 8:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 9:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 9:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 10:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 10:14 ` Eric Auger
2021-06-09 9:01 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-06-09 9:01 ` Leon Romanovsky
2021-06-09 9:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 9:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-09 12:24 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 12:24 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 12:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 12:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 13:32 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 13:32 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 15:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 15:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 15:51 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 15:51 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-09 16:15 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 16:15 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 16:27 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 16:27 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-09 18:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-09 18:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-10 15:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-10 15:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-11 0:58 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-11 0:58 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-11 21:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-11 21:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 3:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-14 3:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-14 3:22 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 3:22 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 1:05 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 1:05 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-14 13:38 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 13:38 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 1:21 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 1:21 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 16:56 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 6:53 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-16 6:53 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-24 4:50 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:50 ` David Gibson
2021-06-11 16:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-11 16:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-11 19:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-11 19:38 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-12 1:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-12 1:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-12 16:57 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-12 16:57 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 14:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 14:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 16:28 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 16:28 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-14 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 2:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 2:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-15 16:12 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 16:12 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 6:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-16 6:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-16 19:39 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-16 19:39 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-17 3:39 ` Liu Yi L
2021-06-17 3:39 ` Liu Yi L
2021-06-17 7:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-17 7:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-17 21:14 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-17 21:14 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-18 0:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 0:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 16:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-18 16:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-18 18:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 18:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-25 10:27 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-25 10:27 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-25 14:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-25 14:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 1:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 1:09 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 22:31 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 22:31 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 22:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 22:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 23:09 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 23:09 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-28 23:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 23:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-29 0:26 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:26 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:28 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:28 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-29 0:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 2:03 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 2:03 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 14:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 14:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 6:45 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 6:45 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-28 16:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-28 16:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:26 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:26 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 5:59 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-24 5:59 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-06-24 12:22 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 12:22 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 4:23 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:23 ` David Gibson
2021-06-18 0:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-06-18 0:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 13:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-18 13:47 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-06-18 15:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 15:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 15:37 ` Raj, Ashok
2021-06-18 15:37 ` Raj, Ashok
2021-06-18 15:51 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-18 15:51 ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-24 4:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 11:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 11:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 0:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 0:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-17 5:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 5:29 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 5:02 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 5:02 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 23:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-17 23:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:37 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:37 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 11:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 11:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-10 5:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-10 5:50 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17 5:22 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 5:22 ` David Gibson
2021-06-18 5:21 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-18 5:21 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 4:03 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:03 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 13:42 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-24 13:42 ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17 4:45 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 4:45 ` David Gibson
2021-06-17 23:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-17 23:10 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-24 4:07 ` David Gibson
2021-06-24 4:07 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210618005239.GB1987166@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=hao.wu@intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@metux.net \
--cc=lushenming@huawei.com \
--cc=parav@mellanox.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.