From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E2BC433DF for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C9B2068E for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726403AbgFLJVS (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:18 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52930 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726302AbgFLJVR (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:17 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05C91aFS097027; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:14 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31m2yfeqsr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:14 -0400 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 05C9I5gE156020; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:14 -0400 Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31m2yfeqry-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:21:13 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05C9BkQQ006444; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:12 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31g2s7vje0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:12 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 05C9L9IH64815448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:09 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605B042049; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E287242042; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3016276355.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.76.70]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:21:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: protvirt: virtio: Refuse device without IOMMU To: Jason Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <1591794711-5915-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <467d5b58-b70c-1c45-4130-76b6e18c05af@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:21:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <467d5b58-b70c-1c45-4130-76b6e18c05af@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-11_23:2020-06-11,2020-06-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006110174 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-06-11 05:10, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/6/10 下午9:11, Pierre Morel wrote: >> Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and >> do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. >> >> Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU >> protected access. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >> --- >>   drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++ >>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c >> b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c >> index 5730572b52cd..06ffbc96587a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c >> +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c >> @@ -986,6 +986,11 @@ static void virtio_ccw_set_status(struct >> virtio_device *vdev, u8 status) >>       if (!ccw) >>           return; >> +    /* Protected Virtualisation guest needs IOMMU */ >> +    if (is_prot_virt_guest() && >> +        !__virtio_test_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) >> +            status &= ~VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK; >> + >>       /* Write the status to the host. */ >>       vcdev->dma_area->status = status; >>       ccw->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_WRITE_STATUS; > > > I wonder whether we need move it to virtio core instead of ccw. > > I think the other memory protection technologies may suffer from this as > well. > > Thanks > What would you think of the following, also taking into account Connie's comment on where the test should be done: - declare a weak function in virtio.c code, returning that memory protection is not in use. - overwrite the function in the arch code - call this function inside core virtio_finalize_features() and if required fail if the device don't have VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Alternative could be to test a global variable that the architecture would overwrite if needed but I find the weak function solution more flexible. With a function, we also have the possibility to provide the device as argument and take actions depending it, this may answer Halil's concern. Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen