On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:57:14 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:43:57PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
> > An architecture protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host
> > access may want to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the
> > use of VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> >
> > Let's give a chance to the architecture to accept or not devices
> > without VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/mm/init.c | 6 ++++++
> > drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/virtio.h | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> > if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> > return 0;
> >
> > + if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> > + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> > + dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > + "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > +
> > virtio_add_status(dev, VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK);
> > status = dev->config->get_status(dev);
> > if (!(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK)) {
>
> Well don't you need to check it *before* VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1, not after?
But it's only available with VERSION_1 anyway, isn't it? So it probably
also needs to fail when this feature is needed if VERSION_1 has not been
negotiated, I think.
