From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com> To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 02/11] PCI: Lock down BAR access when module security is enabled Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:01:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1378321314.13193.7.camel@x230> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1378321109.2627.9.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1233 bytes --] On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 19:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:04 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > How does virt passthrough work in this case? The current situation > > appears to be that qemu just passes the BARs through to the guest, and > > it's the guest that sets things up. We'd need to be able to ensure that > > there's no way the guest driver can cause DMA into the host kernel. > > We set up the IOMMU page tables so that the virtual bus addresses seen > by the PCI device are 1:1 mapped to the guest "physical" address space. > > That is, what the PCI device sees as a "physical" address is equivalent > to what the guest sees as a "physical" address space. It can access > memory which belongs to that guest, and nothing else. So that should be > fine. But presumably the guest's view of RAM is what gets written to the BARs? I guess if we know it's constrained then there's no need to restrict the addresses that can be set - we know that they'll be unable to overlap the host RAM. -- Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com> ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þG«éÿ{ayº\x1dÊÚë,j\a¢f£¢·hïêÿêçz_è®\x03(éÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iOæ¬z·vØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?I¥
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett-05XSO3Yj/JvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> Cc: "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" <linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org" <keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>, "hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 02/11] PCI: Lock down BAR access when module security is enabled Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:01:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1378321314.13193.7.camel@x230> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1378321109.2627.9.camel-Fexsq3y4057IgHVZqg5X0TlWvGAXklZc@public.gmane.org> On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 19:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:04 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > How does virt passthrough work in this case? The current situation > > appears to be that qemu just passes the BARs through to the guest, and > > it's the guest that sets things up. We'd need to be able to ensure that > > there's no way the guest driver can cause DMA into the host kernel. > > We set up the IOMMU page tables so that the virtual bus addresses seen > by the PCI device are 1:1 mapped to the guest "physical" address space. > > That is, what the PCI device sees as a "physical" address is equivalent > to what the guest sees as a "physical" address space. It can access > memory which belongs to that guest, and nothing else. So that should be > fine. But presumably the guest's view of RAM is what gets written to the BARs? I guess if we know it's constrained then there's no need to restrict the addresses that can be set - we know that they'll be unable to overlap the host RAM. -- Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-04 19:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-09-03 23:50 Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` (unknown), Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 01/11] Add secure_modules() call Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:45 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:45 ` James Morris 2013-09-05 2:14 ` joeyli 2013-09-05 2:14 ` joeyli 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 02/11] PCI: Lock down BAR access when module security is enabled Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:45 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:45 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 16:57 ` David Woodhouse 2013-09-04 16:57 ` David Woodhouse 2013-09-04 17:04 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 17:04 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 18:58 ` David Woodhouse 2013-09-04 19:01 ` Matthew Garrett [this message] 2013-09-04 19:01 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 19:31 ` David Woodhouse 2013-09-04 19:31 ` David Woodhouse 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 03/11] x86: Lock down IO port " Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:45 ` James Morris 2013-09-05 3:52 ` H. Peter Anvin 2013-09-05 3:52 ` H. Peter Anvin 2013-09-05 3:58 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-05 3:58 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-05 15:36 ` H. Peter Anvin 2013-09-05 15:36 ` H. Peter Anvin 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 04/11] ACPI: Limit access to custom_method Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:46 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:46 ` James Morris 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 05/11] asus-wmi: Restrict debugfs interface when module loading is restricted Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:46 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:46 ` James Morris 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 06/11] Restrict /dev/mem and /dev/kmem " Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:47 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:47 ` James Morris 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 07/11] acpi: Ignore acpi_rsdp kernel parameter " Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 08/11] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel enforces module loading restrictions Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:48 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:48 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 20:09 ` jerry.hoemann 2013-09-04 20:09 ` jerry.hoemann-VXdhtT5mjnY 2013-09-04 20:12 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 20:12 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 20:12 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 20:14 ` Josh Boyer 2013-09-04 20:14 ` Josh Boyer 2013-09-04 20:14 ` Josh Boyer 2013-09-08 6:40 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 6:40 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 6:44 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 6:44 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 7:24 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 7:24 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 14:40 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 14:40 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 15:51 ` Kees Cook 2013-09-08 15:51 ` Kees Cook 2013-09-08 16:18 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 16:18 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 16:24 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 16:24 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 16:39 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 16:39 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 16:59 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 16:59 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:22 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 17:22 ` Greg KH 2013-09-08 17:25 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:25 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:11 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:11 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:15 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:15 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:22 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:22 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:27 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:27 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:32 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:32 ` James Bottomley 2013-09-08 17:38 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-08 17:38 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 09/11] uswsusp: Disable when module loading is restricted Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:48 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:48 ` James Morris 2013-09-05 3:20 ` joeyli 2013-09-05 3:20 ` joeyli 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 10/11] x86: Restrict MSR access " Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 0:49 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 0:49 ` James Morris 2013-09-03 23:50 ` [PATCH V3 11/11] Add option to automatically enforce module signatures when in Secure Boot mode Matthew Garrett 2013-09-03 23:50 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 1:42 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 1:42 ` James Morris 2013-09-04 1:42 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 1:42 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-05 3:13 ` joeyli 2013-09-05 8:24 ` joeyli 2013-09-05 8:24 ` joeyli 2013-09-05 10:16 ` Matt Fleming 2013-09-05 10:16 ` Matt Fleming 2013-09-05 12:54 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-05 12:54 ` Matthew Garrett 2013-09-04 15:53 ` Kees Cook 2013-09-04 15:53 ` Re: Kees Cook 2013-09-04 16:05 ` Re: Josh Boyer 2013-09-04 16:05 ` Re: Josh Boyer
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=1378321314.13193.7.camel@x230 \ --to=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \ --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ /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: linkBe 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.