On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 02:48:03AM +0530, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/26/2021 1:22 AM, 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I think this security issue should be addressed by letting mdev device
> inherit its parent's iommu_group, i.e. VF's iommu_group here.

No, that doesn't work.  AIUI part of the whole point of mdevs is to
allow chunks of a single PCI function to be handed out to different
places, because they're isolated from each other not by the system
IOMMU, but by a combination of MMU hardware in the hardware (e.g. in a
GPU card) and software in the mdev driver.  If mdevs inherited the
group of their parent device they wouldn't count as isolated from each
other, which they should.

> 
> Kirti
> 
> > 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