On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 07:18:33PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2021-05-20 15:34, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:13:55PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > > > By "mdev-like" I mean it's very similar in shape to the general SIOV-style > > > mediated device concept - i.e. a physical device with an awareness of > > > operating on multiple contexts at once, using a Substream ID/PASID for each > > > one - but instead of exposing control of the contexts to anyone else, they > > > remain hidden behind the kernel driver which already has its own abstracted > > > uAPI, so overall it ends up as more just internal housekeeping than any > > > actual mediation. We were looking at the mdev code for inspiration, but > > > directly using it was never the plan. > > > > Well: > > - Who maps memory into the IOASID (ie the specific sub stream id)? > > Sorry to nitpick, but I think it's important to get terminology right here > to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding. You can't map memory into an address > space ID; it's just a number. Ah sorry, the naming in the other thread for the uAPI seems to trended into the IOASID == what the kernel calls domain and what the kernel calls ioasid (the number) is just some subproperty. Nobody has come up with a better name to refer to an abstract io page table object. Maybe the RFC stage will elicit a better idea. > implicitly by a userspace process; I care about the case of it being > provided by an iommu_domain where things are mapped explicitly by a > kernel driver. I would be extremely wary of creating some new third > *address space* abstraction. Well we have lots, and every time you add new uAPI to kernel drivers to program an IOMMU domain you are making more. Frankly, the idea of having a PASID/substream ID that is entirely programmed by the kernel feels like using the thing wrong.. Why do this? The primary point of these things is to create a security boundary, but if the kernel already controls everything there isn't a security boundary to be had. What is the issue with just jamming everything into the the main IO page table for the device? > > - What memory must be mapped? > > - Who triggers DMA to this memory? > > It's a pretty typical DMA flow, as far as I understand. Userspace allocates > some buffers (in this case, via the kernel driver, but in general I'm not > sure it makes much difference), puts data in the buffers, issues an ioctl to > say "process this data", and polls for completion; the kernel driver makes > sure the buffers are mapped in the device address space (at allocation time > in this case, but in general I assume it could equally be done at request > time for user pages), and deals with scheduling requests onto the hardware. Sounds like a GPU :P > I understand this interface is already deployed in a driver stack which > supports a single client process at once; extending the internals to allow > requests from multiple processes to run in parallel using Substream IDs for > isolation is the future goal. The interface itself shouldn't change, only > some internal arbitration details. Using substreams for isolation makes sense, but here isolation should really mean everything. Stuffing a mix of kernel private and application data into the same isolation security box sounds like a recipe for CVEs to me... > No. In our case, the device does not need to operate on userspace addresses, > in fact quite the opposite. There may need to be additional things mapped > into the device address space which are not, and should not be, visible to > userspace. There are also some quite weird criteria for optimal address > space layout which frankly are best left hidden inside the kernel driver. > Said driver is already explicitly managing its own iommu_domain in the same > manner as various DRM drivers and others, so growing that to multiple > parallel domains really isn't a big leap. Moving any of this responsibility > into userspace would be unwanted and unnecessary upheaval. This is all out of tree right? > (there's nothing to share), and I don't even understand your second case, > but attaching multiple SSIDs to a single domain is absolutely something > which _could_ be done, there's just zero point in a single driver doing that > privately when it could simply run the relevant jobs under the same SSID > instead. It makes sense in the virtualization context where often a goal is to just map the guest's physical address space into the IOMMU and share it to all DMA devices connected to the VM. Keep in mind most of the motivation here is to do something more robust for the virtualization story. > > http://lore.kernel.org/r/20210517143758.GP1002214@xxxxxxxxxx > > Thanks, along with our discussion here that kind of confirms my concern. > Assuming IOASID can wrap up a whole encapsulated thing which is either SVA > or IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA is too much of an overabstraction. I think it is more than just those two simple things. There are lots of platform specific challenges to creating vIOMMUs, especially with PASID/etc that needs to be addressed too. > There definitely *are* uses for IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA - say you want to > put some SIOV ADIs to work for the host kernel using their regular > non-IOMMU-aware driver - but there will also be cases for Er, I don't think SIOV's work like that. Nobody is going to create a SIOV using a completely unaware driver - that only works in virtualization and relies on hypervisor software to build up the fiction of a real device. In-kernel SIOV usages are going to have to either continue to use the real device's IOMMU page tables or to convince the DMA API to give it another PASID/SSID/etc. At least this is how I'm seeing real SIOV device drivers evolving right now. We already have some real examples on this in mlx5 and today it uses the parent device's IOMMU page tables. > IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED, although I do mostly expect those to be SoC > devices whose drivers are already IOMMU-aware and just want to be so > at a finer-grained level, not PCI devices. Even > IOMMU_DOMAIN_PASSTHROUGH for IOASIDs _could_ be doable if a > sufficiently compelling reason came along. I agree that SVA on > init_mm is pretty bonkers, but don't get too hung up on the DMA API > angle which is really orthogonal - passthrough domains with > dma-direct ops have been working fine for years. I've heard the DMA API maintainers refer to that "working fine" as hacky crap, so <shrug>. A formalization of this stuff should not be excluding the DMA API. > Great! It feels like one of the major things will be that, at least without > major surgery to the DMA API, So long as the DMA is all orchestrated by userspace to userspace buffers, the DMA API doesn't get involved. It is only the thing that in-kernel users should use. IMHO if your use case is to do DMA to a security domain then it should all go through the DMA API, including the mapping of memory into the IOMMU page tables for that domain. Having a kernel driver bypassing the whole thing by directly using the domain directly seems quite rough to me. A drivers/iommu API call to take an arbitary struct device and bind the DMA API for the struct device to a newly created PASID/SSID of a real device seems like a reasonable direction to me for in-kernel use. Especially if the struct device doesn't need to be device_add()'d. Jason
