On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:43:31AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2018/12/14 下午9:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:43:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2018/12/13 下午10:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Just to make sure I understand this. It looks to me we should: > > > > > > > > > > - allow passing GIOVA->GPA through UAPI > > > > > > > > > > - cache GIOVA->GPA somewhere but still use GIOVA->HVA in device IOTLB for > > > > > performance > > > > > > > > > > Is this what you suggest? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Not really. We already have GPA->HVA, so I suggested a flag to pass > > > > GIOVA->GPA in the IOTLB. > > > > > > > > This has advantages for security since a single table needs > > > > then to be validated to ensure guest does not corrupt > > > > QEMU memory. > > > > > > > I wonder how much we can gain through this. Currently, qemu IOMMU gives > > > GIOVA->GPA mapping, and qemu vhost code will translate GPA to HVA then pass > > > GIOVA->HVA to vhost. It looks no difference to me. > > > > > > Thanks > > The difference is in security not in performance. Getting a bad HVA > > corrupts QEMU memory and it might be guest controlled. Very risky. > > > How can this be controlled by guest? HVA was generated from qemu ram blocks > which is totally under the control of qemu memory core instead of guest. > > > Thanks It is ultimately under guest influence as guest supplies IOVA->GPA translations. qemu translates GPA->HVA and gives the translated result to the kernel. If it's not buggy and kernel isn't buggy it's all fine. But that's the approach that was proven not to work in the 20th century. In the 21st century we are trying defence in depth approach. My point is that a single code path that is responsible for the HVA translations is better than two. > > > If > > translations to HVA are done in a single place through a single table > > it's safer as there's a single risky place. > >
