From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
thomas.lendacky@amd.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au,
linuxram@us.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
gor@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:20:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:29:56 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host
> > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the
> > use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> >
> > Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices
> > without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> >
> [..]
>
>
> I'm still not really satisfied with your commit message, furthermore
> I did some thinking about the abstraction you introduce here. I will
> give a short analysis of that, but first things first. Your patch does
> the job of preventing calamity, and the details can be changed any time,
> thus:
>
> Acked-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
>
> Regarding the interaction of architecture specific code with virtio core,
> I believe we could have made the interface more generic.
>
> One option is to introduce virtio_arch_finalize_features(), a hook that
> could reject any feature that is inappropriate.
s/any feature/any combination of features/
This sounds like a good idea (for a later update).
>
> Another option would be to find a common name for is_prot_virt_guest()
> (arch/s390) sev_active() (arch/x86) and is_secure_guest() (arch/powerpc)
> and use that instead of arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform() and where-ever
> appropriate. Currently we seem to want this info in driver code only for
> virtio, but if the virtio driver has a legitimate need to know, other
> drivers may as well have a legitimate need to know. For example if we
> wanted to protect ourselves in ccw device drivers from somebody
> setting up a vfio-ccw device and attach it to the prot-virt guest (AFAICT
> we only lack guest enablement for this) such a function could be useful.
I'm not really sure if we can find enough commonality between
architectures, unless you propose to have a function for checking
things like device memory only.
>
> But since this can be rewritten any time, let's go with the option
> people already agree with, instead of more discussion.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with the patch as-is.
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Which tree should this go through? Virtio? s390?
>
> Just another question. Do we want this backported? Do we need cc stable?
It does change behaviour of virtio-ccw devices; but then, it only
fences off configurations that would not have worked anyway.
Distributions should probably pick this; but I do not consider it
strictly a "fix" (more a mitigation for broken configurations), so I'm
not sure whether stable applies.
> [..]
>
>
> > int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > {
> > int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> > @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> > return 0;
> >
> > + if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> > + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> > + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > + "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
>
> I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a
> good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that
Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in
headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define
and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn.
> much. An alternative would be:
> "virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory,
> aborting the device"
"virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ?
But no issue with keeping the current message.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-19 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-17 10:43 [PATCH v3 0/1] s390: virtio: let arch choose to accept devices without IOMMU feature Pierre Morel
2020-06-17 10:43 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch " Pierre Morel
2020-06-17 11:22 ` Heiko Carstens
2020-06-17 11:59 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-17 13:36 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-06-17 14:12 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-17 22:29 ` Halil Pasic
2020-06-19 9:20 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2020-06-19 12:02 ` Halil Pasic
2020-06-29 13:15 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 13:14 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 13:44 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-06-29 16:10 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 13:21 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 15:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-06-29 16:05 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-02 13:03 ` Pierre Morel
2020-07-06 13:37 ` Pierre Morel
2020-07-06 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-06 15:01 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 16:09 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 16:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-06-29 16:48 ` Pierre Morel
2020-06-29 21:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-06-30 7:08 ` Cornelia Huck
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=20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).