Hi Geetha, On 23/12/2016 14:33, Geetha Akula wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Seeing same issue reported by Diana on ThunderX with you > v4.9-reserved-v4 branch. > Vfio passthough work fine when allow_unsafe_interrupts is set. Thank you for testing! I will fix the security assessment by better studying flag propagation in domain hierarchy. Best Regards Eric > > > Thank you, > Geetha. > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Hi Diana, > > On 22/12/2016 13:41, Diana Madalina Craciun wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On 12/13/2016 10:32 PM, Eric Auger wrote: > >> In case the IOMMU does not bypass MSI transactions (typical > >> case on ARM), we check all MSI controllers are IRQ remapping > >> capable. If not the IRQ assignment may be unsafe. > >> > >> At this stage the arm-smmu-(v3) still advertise the > >> IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP capability at IOMMU level. This will be > >> removed in subsequent patches. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>> > >> --- > >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 9 ++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > >> index d07fe73..a05648b 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > >> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ > >> #include <linux/vfio.h> > >> #include <linux/workqueue.h> > >> #include <linux/dma-iommu.h> > >> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h> > >> > >> #define DRIVER_VERSION "0.2" > >> #define DRIVER_AUTHOR "Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>>" > >> @@ -765,7 +766,7 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void > *iommu_data, > >> struct vfio_domain *domain, *d; > >> struct bus_type *bus = NULL; > >> int ret; > >> - bool resv_msi; > >> + bool resv_msi, msi_remap; > >> phys_addr_t resv_msi_base; > >> > >> mutex_lock(&iommu->lock); > >> @@ -818,8 +819,10 @@ static int > vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data, > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list); > >> list_add(&group->next, &domain->group_list); > >> > >> - if (!allow_unsafe_interrupts && > >> - !iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP)) { > >> + msi_remap = resv_msi ? irq_domain_check_msi_remap() : > >> + iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP); > >> + > >> + if (!allow_unsafe_interrupts && !msi_remap) { > >> pr_warn("%s: No interrupt remapping support. Use > the module param \"allow_unsafe_interrupts\" to enable VFIO IOMMU > support on this platform\n", > >> __func__); > >> ret = -EPERM; > > > > I tested your v4.9-reserved-v4 branch on a ITS capable hardware (NXP > > LS2080), so I did not set allow_unsafe_interrupts. It fails here > > complaining that the there is no interrupt remapping support. The > > irq_domain_check_msi_remap function returns false as none of the > checked > > domains has the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP flag set. I think the reason > > is that the flags are not propagated through the domain hierarchy when > > the domain is created. > > Hum OK. Please apologize for the inconvenience, all the more so this is > the second time you report the same issue for different cause :-( At the > moment I can't test on a GICv3 ITS based system. I will try to fix that > though. > > I would like to get the confirmation introducing this flag is the right > direction though. > > Thanks > > Eric > > > > Thanks, > > > > Diana > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
