lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/6] vfio/type1: check dma map request is within a valid iova range
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:05:43 +0100
Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Shameer,
>
> [Adding Robin in CC]
> On 21/02/18 13:22, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > This checks and rejects any dma map request outside valid iova
> > range.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > index a80884e..3049393 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -970,6 +970,23 @@ static int vfio_pin_map_dma(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Check dma map request is within a valid iova range
> > + */
> > +static bool vfio_iommu_iova_dma_valid(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > + dma_addr_t start, dma_addr_t end)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *iova = &iommu->iova_list;
> > + struct vfio_iova *node;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(node, iova, list) {
> > + if ((start >= node->start) && (end <= node->end))
> > + return true;
> I am now confused by the fact this change will prevent existing QEMU
> from working with this series on some platforms. For instance QEMU virt
> machine GPA space collides with Seattle PCI host bridge windows. On ARM
> the smmu and smmuv3 drivers report the PCI host bridge windows as
> reserved regions which does not seem to be the case on other platforms.
> The change happened in commit 273df9635385b2156851c7ee49f40658d7bcb29d
> (iommu/dma: Make PCI window reservation generic).
>
> For background, we already discussed the topic after LPC 2016. See
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2379607.html.
>
> So is it the right choice to expose PCI host bridge windows as reserved
> regions? If yes shouldn't we make a difference between those and MSI
> windows in this series and do not reject any user space DMA_MAP attempt
> within PCI host bridge windows.

If the QEMU machine GPA collides with a reserved region today, then
either:

a) The mapping through the IOMMU works and the reserved region is wrong

or

b) The mapping doesn't actually work, QEMU is at risk of data loss by
being told that it worked, and we're justified in changing that
behavior.

Without knowing the specifics of SMMU, it doesn't particularly make
sense to me to mark the entire PCI hierarchy MMIO range as reserved,
unless perhaps the IOMMU is incapable of translating those IOVAs.

Are we trying to prevent untranslated p2p with this reserved range?
That's not necessarily a terrible idea, but it seems that doing it for
that purpose would need to be a lot smarter, taking into account ACS
and precisely selecting ranges within the peer address space that would
be untranslated. Perhaps only populated MMIO within non-ACS
hierarchies. Thanks,

Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 00:13    [W:0.139 / U:6.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site