Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/06/21 15:15, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 09:56:09AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

Alternatively you can add a KVM_DEV_IOASID_{ADD,DEL} pair of ioctls. But it
seems useless complication compared to just using what we have now, at least
while VMs only use IOASIDs via VFIO.

The simplest is KVM_ENABLE_WBINVD(<fd security proof>) and be done
with it.

The simplest one is KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_ADD/DEL, that already exists and also
covers hot-unplug.  The second simplest one is KVM_DEV_IOASID_ADD/DEL.

This isn't the same thing, this is back to trying to have the kernel
set policy for userspace.

If you want a userspace policy then there would be three states:

* WBINVD enabled because a WBINVD-enabled VFIO device is attached.

* WBINVD potentially enabled but no WBINVD-enabled VFIO device attached

* WBINVD forcefully disabled

KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_ADD/DEL can still be used to distinguish the first two. Due to backwards compatibility, those two describe the default behavior; disabling wbinvd can be done easily with a new sub-ioctl of KVM_ENABLE_CAP and doesn't require any security proof.

The meaning of WBINVD-enabled is "won't return -ENXIO for the wbinvd ioctl", nothing more nothing less. If all VFIO devices are going to be WBINVD-enabled, then that will reflect on KVM as well, and I won't have anything to object if there's consensus on the device assignment side of things that the wbinvd ioctl won't ever fail.

Paolo




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux