Messages in this thread | | | From | Robin Murphy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] vfio/type1: check dma map request is within a valid iova range | Date | Wed, 14 Mar 2018 18:12:18 +0000 |
| |
Hi Shameer,
On 05/03/18 11:44, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote: > Hi Robin, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 5:17 PM >> To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>; Shameerali Kolothum >> Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com> >> Cc: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>; pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com; >> kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm >> <linuxarm@huawei.com>; John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>; xuwei (O) >> <xuwei5@huawei.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] vfio/type1: check dma map request is within a valid >> iova range >> >> On 02/03/18 16:04, Alex Williamson wrote: >> [...] >>>>> I still think you're overstretching the IOMMU reserved region interface >>>>> by trying to report possible ACS conflicts. Are we going to update the >>>>> reserved list on device hotplug? Are we going to update the list when >>>>> MMIO is enabled or disabled for each device? What if the BARs are >>>>> reprogrammed or bridge apertures changed? IMO, the IOMMU reserved >> list >>>>> should account for specific IOVA exclusions that apply to transactions >>>>> that actually reach the IOMMU, not aliasing that might occur in the >>>>> downstream topology. Additionally, the IOMMU group composition must >> be >>>>> such that these sorts of aliasing issues can only occur within an IOMMU >>>>> group. If a transaction can be affected by the MMIO programming of >>>>> another group, then the groups are drawn incorrectly for the isolation >>>>> capabilities of the hardware. Thanks, >>>> >>>> Agree that this is not a perfect thing to do covering all scenarios. As Robin >>>> pointed out, the current code is playing safe by reserving the full windows. >>>> >>>> My suggestion will be to limit this reservation to non-ACS cases only. This >> will >>>> make sure that ACS ARM hardware is not broken by this series and nos-ACS >>>> ones has a chance to run once Qemu is updated to take care of the reserved >>>> regions (at least in some user scenarios). >>>> >>>> If you all are fine with this, I can include the ACS check I mentioned earlier >> in >>>> iommu_dma_get_resv_regions() and sent out the revised series. >>>> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts. >>> >>> IMO, the IOMMU should be concerned with ACS as far as isolation is >>> concerned and reporting reserved ranges that are imposed at the IOMMU >>> and leave any aliasing or routing issues in the downstream topology to >>> other layers, or perhaps to the user. Unfortunately, enforcing the >>> iova list in vfio is gated by some movement here since we can't break >>> existing users. Thanks, >> >> FWIW, given the discussion we've had here I wouldn't object to pushing >> the PCI window reservation back into the DMA-specific path, such that it >> doesn't get exposed via the general IOMMU API interface. We *do* want to >> do it there where we are in total control of our own address space and >> it just avoids a whole class of problems (even with ACS I'm not sure the >> root complex can be guaranteed to send a "bad" IOVA out to the SMMU >> instead of just terminating it for looking like a peer-to-peer attempt). >> >> I do agree that it's not scalable for the IOMMU layer to attempt to >> detect and describe upstream PCI limitations to userspace by itself - >> they are "reserved regions" rather than "may or may not work regions" >> after all. If there is a genuine integration issue between an IOMMU and >> an upstream PCI RC which restricts usable addresses on a given system, >> that probably needs to be explicitly communicated from firmware to the >> IOMMU driver anyway, at which point that driver can report the relevant >> region(s) directly from its own callback. >> >> I suppose there's an in-between option of keeping generic window >> reservations but giving them a new "only reserve this if you're being >> super-cautious or don't know better" region type which we hide from >> userspace and ignore in VFIO, but maybe that leaves the lines a but too >> blurred still. > > Thanks for your reply and details. I have made an attempt to revert the PCI > window reservation back into the DMA path. Could you please take a look > at the below changes and let me know. > (This is on top of HW MSI reserve patches which is now part of linux-next)
Thanks for putting this together - seeing what's left after the patch makes me feel half-tempted to effectively revert 273df9635385 altogether and just call iort_iommu_msi_get_resv_regions() directly from SMMUv3, but there are other things like dma-ranges constraints which we may also want to handle generically somewhere so it's probably worth keeping iommu_dma_get_resv_regions() around as a common hook for now. In future it might ultimately make sense to move it out to something like iommu_get_fw_resv_regions(), but that can be a discussion for another day; right now it seems this ought to be enough to resolve everyone's immediate concerns.
Cheers, Robin.
> > Thanks, > Shameer > > -->8-- > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c > index f05f3cf..ddcbbdb 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c > @@ -167,40 +167,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(iommu_put_dma_cookie); > * @list: Reserved region list from iommu_get_resv_regions() > * > * IOMMU drivers can use this to implement their .get_resv_regions callback > - * for general non-IOMMU-specific reservations. Currently, this covers host > - * bridge windows for PCI devices and GICv3 ITS region reservation on ACPI > - * based ARM platforms that may require HW MSI reservation. > + * for general non-IOMMU-specific reservations. Currently, this covers GICv3 > + * ITS region reservation on ACPI based ARM platforms that may require HW MSI > + * reservation. > */ > void iommu_dma_get_resv_regions(struct device *dev, struct list_head *list) > { > - struct pci_host_bridge *bridge; > - struct resource_entry *window; > - > - if (!is_of_node(dev->iommu_fwspec->iommu_fwnode) && > - iort_iommu_msi_get_resv_regions(dev, list) < 0) > - return; > - > - if (!dev_is_pci(dev)) > - return; > - > - bridge = pci_find_host_bridge(to_pci_dev(dev)->bus); > - resource_list_for_each_entry(window, &bridge->windows) { > - struct iommu_resv_region *region; > - phys_addr_t start; > - size_t length; > - > - if (resource_type(window->res) != IORESOURCE_MEM) > - continue; > > - start = window->res->start - window->offset; > - length = window->res->end - window->res->start + 1; > - region = iommu_alloc_resv_region(start, length, 0, > - IOMMU_RESV_RESERVED); > - if (!region) > - return; > + if (!is_of_node(dev->iommu_fwspec->iommu_fwnode)) > + iort_iommu_msi_get_resv_regions(dev, list); > > - list_add_tail(®ion->list, list); > - } > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(iommu_dma_get_resv_regions); > > @@ -229,6 +205,23 @@ static int cookie_init_hw_msi_region(struct iommu_dma_cookie *cookie, > return 0; > } > > +static void iova_reserve_pci_windows(struct pci_dev *dev, > + struct iova_domain *iovad) > +{ > + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus); > + struct resource_entry *window; > + unsigned long lo, hi; > + > + resource_list_for_each_entry(window, &bridge->windows) { > + if (resource_type(window->res) != IORESOURCE_MEM) > + continue; > + > + lo = iova_pfn(iovad, window->res->start - window->offset); > + hi = iova_pfn(iovad, window->res->end - window->offset); > + reserve_iova(iovad, lo, hi); > + } > +} > + > static int iova_reserve_iommu_regions(struct device *dev, > struct iommu_domain *domain) > { > @@ -238,6 +231,9 @@ static int iova_reserve_iommu_regions(struct device *dev, > LIST_HEAD(resv_regions); > int ret = 0; > > + if (dev_is_pci(dev)) > + iova_reserve_pci_windows(to_pci_dev(dev), iovad); > + > iommu_get_resv_regions(dev, &resv_regions); > list_for_each_entry(region, &resv_regions, list) { > unsigned long lo, hi; > > >
| |