On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:45:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:38:42AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > Opening the group is not the extent of the security check currently > > required, the group must be added to a container and an IOMMU model > > configured for the container *before* the user can get a devicefd. > > Each devicefd creates a reference to this security context, therefore > > access to a device does not exist without such a context. > > Okay, I missed that detail in the organization.. > > So, if we have an independent vfio device fd then it needs to be > kept disable until the user joins it to an ioasid that provides the > security proof to allow it to work? > > > What happens on detach? As we've discussed elsewhere in this thread, > > revoking access is more difficult than holding a reference to the > > secure context, but I'm under the impression that moving a device > > between IOASIDs could be standard practice in this new model. A device > > that's detached from a secure context, even temporarily, is a > > problem. > > This is why I think the single iommu FD is critical, it is the FD, not > the IOASID that has to authorize the security. You shouldn't move > devices between FDs, but you can move them between IOASIDs inside the > same FD. > > > How to label a device seems like a relatively mundane issue relative to > > ownership and isolated contexts of groups and devices. The label is > > essentially just creating an identifier to device mapping, where the > > identifier (label) will be used in the IOASID interface, right? > > It looks that way > > > As I note above, that makes it difficult for vfio to maintain that a > > user only accesses a device in a secure context. This is exactly > > why vfio has the model of getting a devicefd from a groupfd only > > when that group is in a secure context and maintaining references to > > that secure context for each device. Split ownership of the secure > > context in IOASID vs device access in vfio and exposing devicefds > > outside the group is still a big question mark for me. Thanks, > > I think the protection model becomes different once we allow > individual devices inside a group to be attached to different > IOASID's. I'm really wary of this. They might be rare, but we still need to consider the case of devices which can't be distinguished on the bus, and therefore can't be attached to different IOASIDs. That means that if we allow attaching devices within a group to different IOASIDs we effectively need to introduce two levels of "group-like" things. First the idenfication group, then the isolation group. You're using "group" for the isolation group, but then we have to somehow expose this concept of identification group. That seems like a heap of complexity and confusion in the interface. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
