| Message ID | 20220616000304.23890-4-nicolinc@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Simplify vfio_iommu_type1 attach/detach routine | expand |
> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 8:03 AM > > The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver > systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So > remove it. It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual platform is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-d or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of simply saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit code to reject such configuration.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver > > systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So > > remove it. > > It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual platform > is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-d > or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) > there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of simply > saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit code > to reject such configuration.
On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >>> The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver >>> systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So >>> remove it. >> >> It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual platform >> is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-d >> or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) >> there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of simply >> saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit code >> to reject such configuration.
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 3:55 PM > > On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > >>> The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed- > driver > >>> systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So > >>> remove it. > >> > >> It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual > platform > >> is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT- > d > >> or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) > >> there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of > simply > >> saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit > code > >> to reject such configuration.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 03:50:22AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 3:55 PM > > > > On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > >>> The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed- > > driver > > >>> systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So > > >>> remove it. > > >> > > >> It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual > > platform > > >> is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT- > > d > > >> or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) > > >> there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of > > simply > > >> saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit > > code > > >> to reject such configuration.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 08:54:45AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver > > > > systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So > > > > remove it. > > > > > > It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual platform > > > is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-d > > > or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) > > > there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of simply > > > saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit code > > > to reject such configuration.
On 2022-06-24 14:16, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 08:54:45AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>> >>>>> The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver >>>>> systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So >>>>> remove it. >>>> >>>> It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual platform >>>> is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-d >>>> or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out) >>>> there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of simply >>>> saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit code >>>> to reject such configuration.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 07:31:47PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > Oh, physical platforms with mixed IOMMUs definitely exist already. The main > > > point is that while bus_set_iommu still exists, the core code effectively > > > *does* prevent multiple drivers from registering - even in emulated cases > > > like the example above, virtio-iommu and VT-d would both try to > > > bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type), and one of them will lose. The aspect which > > > might warrant clarification is that there's no combination of supported > > > drivers which claim non-overlapping buses *and* could appear in the same > > > system - even if you tried to contrive something by emulating, say, VT-d > > > (PCI) alongside rockchip-iommu (platform), you could still only describe one > > > or the other due to ACPI vs. Devicetree. > > > > Right, and that is still something we need to protect against with > > this ops check. VFIO is not checking that the bus's are the same > > before attempting to re-use a domain. > > > > So it is actually functional and does protect against systems with > > multiple iommu drivers on different busses. > > But as above, which systems *are* those? IDK it seems wrong that the system today will allow different buses to have different IOMMU drivers and not provide a trivial protection check. > FWIW my iommu/bus dev branch has got as far as the final bus ops removal and > allowing multiple driver registrations, and before it allows that, it does > now have the common attach check that I sketched out in the previous > discussion of this. If you want to put the check in your series that seems fine too, as long as we get it in the end. > It's probably also noteworthy that domain->ops is no longer the same > domain->ops that this code was written to check, and may now be different > between domains from the same driver. Yes, the vfio check is not good anymore. Jason
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c index f4e3b423a453..11be5f95580b 100644 --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c @@ -2277,29 +2277,19 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data, domain->domain->ops->enforce_cache_coherency( domain->domain); - /* - * Try to match an existing compatible domain. We don't want to - * preclude an IOMMU driver supporting multiple bus_types and being - * able to include different bus_types in the same IOMMU domain, so - * we test whether the domains use the same iommu_ops rather than - * testing if they're on the same bus_type. - */ + /* Try to match an existing compatible domain */ list_for_each_entry(d, &iommu->domain_list, next) { - if (d->domain->ops == domain->domain->ops) { - iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, group->iommu_group); - if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain, - group->iommu_group)) { - list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list); - iommu_domain_free(domain->domain); - kfree(domain); - goto done; - } - - ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain, - group->iommu_group); - if (ret) - goto out_domain; + iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, group->iommu_group); + if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain, group->iommu_group)) { + list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list); + iommu_domain_free(domain->domain); + kfree(domain); + goto done; } + + ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain, group->iommu_group); + if (ret) + goto out_domain; } vfio_test_domain_fgsp(domain);
The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-driver systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So remove it. Per discussion with Robin, in future when many can be permitted we will rely on the IOMMU core code to check the domain->ops: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/6575de6d-94ba-c427-5b1e-967750ddff23@arm.com/ Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> --- drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 32 +++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)