On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:52:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:56:30AM +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> 
> > 2. iommu backed mdev devices for SRIOV where mdev device is created per
> > VF (mdev device == VF device) then that mdev device has same iommu
> > protection scope as VF associated to it. 
> 
> This doesn't require, and certainly shouldn't create, a fake group.

It's only fake if you start with a narrow view of what a group is.  A
group is a set of devices (in the kernel sense of "device", not
necessarily the hardware sense) which can't be isolated from each
other.  The mdev device is a kernel device, and if working as intended
it can be isolated from everything else, and is therefore in an
absolute bona fide group of its own.

> Only the VF's real IOMMU group should be used to model an iommu domain
> linked to a VF. Injecting fake groups that are proxies for real groups
> only opens the possibility of security problems like David is
> concerned with.

It's not a proxy for a real group, it's a group of its own.  If you
discover that (due to a hardware bug, for example) the mdev is *not*
properly isolated from its parent PCI device, then both the mdev
virtual device *and* the physical PCI device are in the same group.
Groups including devices of different types and on different buses
were considered from the start, and are precedented, if rare.

> Max's series approaches this properly by fully linking the struct
> pci_device of the VF throughout the entire VFIO scheme, including the
> group and container, while still allowing override of various VFIO
> operations.
> 
> Jason
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson