[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] intel_iommu: Disable vfio and kvm interrupt assignment when unsafe
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Joerg Roedel <> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:29:42AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Joerg Roedel <> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:08:24PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> - if (x2apic_present)
>> >> - "Failed to enable irq remapping. You are vulnerable to irq-injection attacks.\n");
>> >> -
>> >> + irq_remapping_is_secure = 0;
>> >> return -1;
>> >> }
>> >
>> > Why do you remove this warning? It seems unrelated to the rest of the
>> > patch.
>> The idea is that setting irq_remapping_is_secure = 0 makes you (much
>> less) vulnerable to irq-injection attacks: you're vulnerable to
>> malicious hardware but not to attack via vfio or kvm, because those
>> paths are disabled.
>> I'd have no problem leaving the warning in and letting whoever manages
>> to trigger it and get annoyed fix it. FWIW, it's actually likely to
>> be interesting if the warning hits.
> Hmm, looking into the intel_irq_remapping.c version in the tip tree
> makes me wonder even more.

Is this the version I'm based on (intel_irq_remapping: Clean up x2apic
optout security warning mess), or something else?

> First, I wonder why the warning only hits when an x2apic is present. The
> function is not x2apic-specific and the vulnerability also exists in
> xapic mode. So that dependency can be removed.
> Second, I think that it should be a pr_warn instead of a full WARN. When
> IRQ remapping could not be enabled it's most likely because of the BIOS
> or the hardware. So a message in the kernel log will do and the
> backtrace provides no additional value.

Which warning are you referring to? Unless I'm failing at reading
code this morning, the result of this patch has no such warning.

> Same is true for the warning in the function iommu_set_irq_remapping():
> if (sts & DMA_GSTS_CFIS)
> "Compatibility-format IRQs enabled despite intr remapping;\n"
> "you are vulnerable to IRQ injection.\n");
> From what I can see this condition depends only on the hardware too. So
> a simple pr_warn() provides the same amount of information.

What's the general rule here? If this warning hits, then my
understanding of the Intel VT-d spec is wrong, and I don't think that
firmware can cause it. A buggy hypervisor could, I suppose.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-07 19:41    [W:0.050 / U:1.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site