On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 03:44:25PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:31 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:45:36AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:12 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:18:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:53:07PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Re-sending this patch-set following the release of our user-space TPC > > > > > > compiler and runtime library. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would appreciate a review on this. > > > > > > > > > > I think the big open we have is the entire revoke discussions. Having the > > > > > option to let dma-buf hang around which map to random local memory ranges, > > > > > without clear ownership link and a way to kill it sounds bad to me. > > > > > > > > > > I think there's a few options: > > > > > - We require revoke support. But I've heard rdma really doesn't like that, > > > > > I guess because taking out an MR while holding the dma_resv_lock would > > > > > be an inversion, so can't be done. Jason, can you recap what exactly the > > > > > hold-up was again that makes this a no-go? > > > > > > > > RDMA HW can't do revoke. > > > > Like why? I'm assuming when the final open handle or whatever for that MR > > is closed, you do clean up everything? Or does that MR still stick around > > forever too? > > > > > > So we have to exclude almost all the HW and several interesting use > > > > cases to enable a revoke operation. > > > > > > > > > - For non-revokable things like these dma-buf we'd keep a drm_master > > > > > reference around. This would prevent the next open to acquire > > > > > ownership rights, which at least prevents all the nasty potential > > > > > problems. > > > > > > > > This is what I generally would expect, the DMABUF FD and its DMA > > > > memory just floats about until the unrevokable user releases it, which > > > > happens when the FD that is driving the import eventually gets closed. > > > This is exactly what we are doing in the driver. We make sure > > > everything is valid until the unrevokable user releases it and that > > > happens only when the dmabuf fd gets closed. > > > And the user can't close it's fd of the device until he performs the > > > above, so there is no leakage between users. > > > > Maybe I got the device security model all wrong, but I thought Guadi is > > single user, and the only thing it protects is the system against the > > Gaudi device trhough iommu/device gart. So roughly the following can > > happen: > > > > 1. User A opens gaudi device, sets up dma-buf export > > > > 2. User A registers that with RDMA, or anything else that doesn't support > > revoke. > > > > 3. User A closes gaudi device > This can not happen without User A closing the FD of the dma-buf it exported. > We prevent User A from closing the device because when it exported the > dma-buf, the driver's code took a refcnt of the user's private > structure. You can see that in export_dmabuf_common() in the 2nd > patch. There is a call there to hl_ctx_get. > So even if User A calls close(device_fd), the driver won't let any > other user open the device until User A closes the fd of the dma-buf > object. > > Moreover, once User A will close the dma-buf fd and the device is > released, the driver will scrub the device memory (this is optional > for systems who care about security). > > And AFAIK, User A can't close the dma-buf fd once it registered it > with RDMA, without doing unregister. > This can be seen in ib_umem_dmabuf_get() which calls dma_buf_get() > which does fget(fd) Yeah that's essentially what I was looking for. This is defacto hand-rolling the drm_master owner tracking stuff. As long as we have something like this in place it should be fine I think. -Daniel > > 4. User B opens gaudi device, assumes that it has full control over the > > device and uploads some secrets, which happen to end up in the dma-buf > > region user A set up > > > > 5. User B extracts secrets. > > > > > > I still don't think any of the complexity is needed, pinnable memory > > > > is a thing in Linux, just account for it in mlocked and that is > > > > enough. > > > > It's not mlocked memory, it's mlocked memory and I can exfiltrate it. > > Mlock is fine, exfiltration not so much. It's mlock, but a global pool and > > if you didn't munlock then the next mlock from a completely different user > > will alias with your stuff. > > > > Or is there something that prevents that? Oded at least explain that gaudi > > works like a gpu from 20 years ago, single user, no security at all within > > the device. > > -Daniel > > -- > > Daniel Vetter > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
