Hi Alex,
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 5:19 AM
>
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 01:55:19 -0700
> Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > This patch allows user space to request PASID allocation/free, e.g.
> > when serving the request from the guest.
> >
> > PASIDs that are not freed by userspace are automatically freed when
> > the IOASID set is destroyed when process exits.
> >
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1 -> v2:
> > *) move the vfio_mm related code to be a seprate module
> > *) use a single structure for alloc/free, could support a range of
> > PASIDs
> > *) fetch vfio_mm at group_attach time instead of at iommu driver open
> > time
> > ---
> > drivers/vfio/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 96
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > drivers/vfio/vfio_pasid.c | 10 +++++
> > include/linux/vfio.h | 6 +++
> > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++
> > 5 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig index
> > 3d8a108..95d90c6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/Kconfig
> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > config VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1
> > tristate
> > depends on VFIO
> > + select VFIO_PASID if (X86)
> > default n
> >
> > config VFIO_IOMMU_SPAPR_TCE
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c index 8c143d5..d0891c5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
> > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ struct vfio_iommu {
> > bool v2;
> > bool nesting;
> > struct iommu_nesting_info *nesting_info;
> > + struct vfio_mm *vmm;
>
> Structure alignment again.
sure. may get agreement in the prior email.
>
> > bool dirty_page_tracking;
> > bool pinned_page_dirty_scope;
> > };
> > @@ -1933,6 +1934,17 @@ static void vfio_iommu_iova_insert_copy(struct
> > vfio_iommu *iommu,
> >
> > list_splice_tail(iova_copy, iova);
> > }
> > +
> > +static void vfio_iommu_release_nesting_info(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
> > +{
> > + if (iommu->vmm) {
> > + vfio_mm_put(iommu->vmm);
> > + iommu->vmm = NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + kfree(iommu->nesting_info);
>
> iommu->nesting_info = NULL;
got it.
> > +}
> > +
> > static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
> > struct iommu_group *iommu_group)
> { @@ -2067,6 +2079,25 @@
> > static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
> > goto out_detach;
> > }
> > iommu->nesting_info = info;
> > +
> > + if (info->features & IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_SYSWIDE_PASID) {
> > + struct vfio_mm *vmm;
> > + int sid;
> > +
> > + vmm = vfio_mm_get_from_task(current);
> > + if (IS_ERR(vmm)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(vmm);
> > + goto out_detach;
> > + }
> > + iommu->vmm = vmm;
> > +
> > + sid = vfio_mm_ioasid_sid(vmm);
> > + ret = iommu_domain_set_attr(domain->domain,
> > + DOMAIN_ATTR_IOASID_SID,
> > + &sid);
>
> This looks pretty dicey in the case of !CONFIG_VFIO_PASID, can we get here in
> that case? If so it looks like we're doing bad things with setting the domain-
> >ioasid_sid.
I guess not. So far, vfio_iommu_type1 will select CONFIG_VFIO_PASID for X86.
do you think it is enough?
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto out_detach;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /* Get aperture info */
> > @@ -2178,7 +2209,8 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> > return 0;
> >
> > out_detach:
> > - kfree(iommu->nesting_info);
> > + if (iommu->nesting_info)
> > + vfio_iommu_release_nesting_info(iommu);
>
> Make vfio_iommu_release_nesting_info() check iommu->nesting_info, then call
> it unconditionally?
got it. :-)
> > vfio_iommu_detach_group(domain, group);
> > out_domain:
> > iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> > @@ -2380,7 +2412,8 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void
> *iommu_data,
> > else
> >
> vfio_iommu_unmap_unpin_reaccount(iommu);
> >
> > - kfree(iommu->nesting_info);
> > + if (iommu->nesting_info)
> > +
> vfio_iommu_release_nesting_info(iommu);
> > }
> > iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> > list_del(&domain->next);
> > @@ -2852,6 +2885,63 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_pages(struct
> vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > +static int vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > + unsigned int min,
> > + unsigned int max)
> > +{
> > + int ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> > + if (iommu->vmm)
> > + ret = vfio_pasid_alloc(iommu->vmm, min, max);
> > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_free(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > + unsigned int min,
> > + unsigned int max)
> > +{
> > + int ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
> > + if (iommu->vmm) {
> > + vfio_pasid_free_range(iommu->vmm, min, max);
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
> > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
> > + unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > + struct vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request req;
> > + unsigned long minsz;
> > +
> > + minsz = offsetofend(struct vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request, range);
> > +
> > + if (copy_from_user(&req, (void __user *)arg, minsz))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (req.argsz < minsz || (req.flags & ~VFIO_PASID_REQUEST_MASK))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (req.range.min > req.range.max)
>
> Is it exploitable that a user can spin the kernel for a long time in the case of a free
> by calling this with [0, MAX_UINT] regardless of their actual allocations?
IOASID can ensure that user can only free the PASIDs allocated to the
user. but it's true, kernel needs to loop all the PASIDs within the
range provided by user. it may take a long time. is there anything we
can do? one thing may limit the range provided by user?
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + switch (req.flags & VFIO_PASID_REQUEST_MASK) {
> > + case VFIO_IOMMU_ALLOC_PASID:
> > + return vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_alloc(iommu,
> > + req.range.min, req.range.max);
> > + case VFIO_IOMMU_FREE_PASID:
> > + return vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_free(iommu,
> > + req.range.min, req.range.max);
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) { @@ -
> 2868,6 +2958,8 @@
> > static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> > return vfio_iommu_type1_unmap_dma(iommu, arg);
> > case VFIO_IOMMU_DIRTY_PAGES:
> > return vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_pages(iommu, arg);
> > + case VFIO_IOMMU_PASID_REQUEST:
> > + return vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request(iommu, arg);
> > }
> >
> > return -ENOTTY;
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_pasid.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_pasid.c
> > index dd5b6d1..2ea9f1a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_pasid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_pasid.c
> > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ void vfio_mm_put(struct vfio_mm *vmm) {
> > kref_put_mutex(&vmm->kref, vfio_mm_release,
> > &vfio_pasid.vfio_mm_lock); }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_mm_put);
> >
> > static void vfio_mm_get(struct vfio_mm *vmm) { @@ -103,6 +104,13 @@
> > struct vfio_mm *vfio_mm_get_from_task(struct task_struct *task)
> > mmput(mm);
> > return vmm;
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_mm_get_from_task);
> > +
> > +int vfio_mm_ioasid_sid(struct vfio_mm *vmm) {
> > + return vmm->ioasid_sid;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_mm_ioasid_sid);
> >
> > int vfio_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int min, int max) { @@
> > -112,6 +120,7 @@ int vfio_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int min,
> > int max)
> >
> > return (pasid == INVALID_IOASID) ? -ENOSPC : pasid; }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_pasid_alloc);
> >
> > void vfio_pasid_free_range(struct vfio_mm *vmm,
> > ioasid_t min, ioasid_t max)
> > @@ -129,6 +138,7 @@ void vfio_pasid_free_range(struct vfio_mm *vmm,
> > for (; pasid <= max; pasid++)
> > ioasid_free(pasid);
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_pasid_free_range);
> >
> > static int __init vfio_pasid_init(void) { diff --git
> > a/include/linux/vfio.h b/include/linux/vfio.h index 74e077d..8e60a32
> > 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ struct vfio_mm;
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PASID)
> > extern struct vfio_mm *vfio_mm_get_from_task(struct task_struct
> > *task); extern void vfio_mm_put(struct vfio_mm *vmm);
> > +int vfio_mm_ioasid_sid(struct vfio_mm *vmm);
> > extern int vfio_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int min, int max);
> > extern void vfio_pasid_free_range(struct vfio_mm *vmm,
> > ioasid_t min, ioasid_t max);
> > @@ -114,6 +115,11 @@ static inline void vfio_mm_put(struct vfio_mm
> > *vmm) { }
> >
> > +static inline int vfio_mm_ioasid_sid(struct vfio_mm *vmm) {
> > + return -ENOTTY;
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int vfio_pasid_alloc(struct vfio_mm *vmm, int min, int
> > max) {
> > return -ENOTTY;
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > index f1f39e1..657b2db 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
> > @@ -1162,6 +1162,42 @@ struct vfio_iommu_type1_dirty_bitmap_get {
> >
> > #define VFIO_IOMMU_DIRTY_PAGES _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 17)
> >
> > +/**
> > + * VFIO_IOMMU_PASID_REQUEST - _IOWR(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 18,
> > + * struct vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request)
> > + *
> > + * PASID (Processor Address Space ID) is a PCIe concept for tagging
> > + * address spaces in DMA requests. When system-wide PASID allocation
> > + * is required by underlying iommu driver (e.g. Intel VT-d), this
> > + * provides an interface for userspace to request pasid alloc/free
> > + * for its assigned devices. Userspace should check the availability
> > + * of this API through VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO.
> > + *
> > + * @flags=VFIO_IOMMU_ALLOC_PASID, allocate a single PASID within @range.
> > + * @flags=VFIO_IOMMU_FREE_PASID, free the PASIDs within @range.
> > + * @range is [min, max], which means both @min and @max are inclusive.
> > + * ALLOC_PASID and FREE_PASID are mutually exclusive.
> > + *
> > + * returns: allocated PASID value on success, -errno on failure for
> > + * ALLOC_PASID;
> > + * 0 for FREE_PASID operation;
> > + */
> > +struct vfio_iommu_type1_pasid_request {
> > + __u32 argsz;
> > +#define VFIO_IOMMU_ALLOC_PASID (1 << 0)
> > +#define VFIO_IOMMU_FREE_PASID (1 << 1)
>
> VFIO_IOMMU_PASID_FLAG_{ALLOC,FREE} would be more similar to other VFIO
> UAPI conventions. Thanks,
yes, much better. will modify it.
Thanks,
Yi Liu
> Alex
>
> > + __u32 flags;
> > + struct {
> > + __u32 min;
> > + __u32 max;
> > + } range;
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define VFIO_PASID_REQUEST_MASK (VFIO_IOMMU_ALLOC_PASID | \
> > + VFIO_IOMMU_FREE_PASID)
> > +
> > +#define VFIO_IOMMU_PASID_REQUEST _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 18)
> > +
> > /* -------- Additional API for SPAPR TCE (Server POWERPC) IOMMU
> > -------- */
> >
> > /*
