lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] s390: protvirt: virtio: Refuse device without IOMMU
From
Date


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 <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-12 11:22    [W:0.082 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site