Re: [PATCH for-5.0 v11 08/20] virtio-iommu: Implement translate

[Auger Eric]

Hi Peter, jean,

On 12/19/19 3:49 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 12/19/19 2:33 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:30:40AM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> On 12/10/19 8:33 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 07:29:31PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>>> This patch implements the translate callback
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <address@hidden>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v10 -> v11:
>>>>>> - take into account the new value struct and use
>>>>>>   g_tree_lookup_extended
>>>>>> - switched to error_report_once
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v6 -> v7:
>>>>>> - implemented bypass-mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v5 -> v6:
>>>>>> - replace error_report by qemu_log_mask
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v4 -> v5:
>>>>>> - check the device domain is not NULL
>>>>>> - s/printf/error_report
>>>>>> - set flags to IOMMU_NONE in case of all translation faults
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  hw/virtio/trace-events   |  1 +
>>>>>>  hw/virtio/virtio-iommu.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/trace-events b/hw/virtio/trace-events
>>>>>> index f25359cee2..de7cbb3c8f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/hw/virtio/trace-events
>>>>>> +++ b/hw/virtio/trace-events
>>>>>> @@ -72,3 +72,4 @@ virtio_iommu_get_endpoint(uint32_t ep_id) "Alloc 
>>>>>> endpoint=%d"
>>>>>>  virtio_iommu_put_endpoint(uint32_t ep_id) "Free endpoint=%d"
>>>>>>  virtio_iommu_get_domain(uint32_t domain_id) "Alloc domain=%d"
>>>>>>  virtio_iommu_put_domain(uint32_t domain_id) "Free domain=%d"
>>>>>> +virtio_iommu_translate_out(uint64_t virt_addr, uint64_t phys_addr, 
>>>>>> uint32_t sid) "0x%"PRIx64" -> 0x%"PRIx64 " for sid=%d"
>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-iommu.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-iommu.c
>>>>>> index f0a56833a2..a83666557b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-iommu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-iommu.c
>>>>>> @@ -412,19 +412,80 @@ static IOMMUTLBEntry 
>>>>>> virtio_iommu_translate(IOMMUMemoryRegion *mr, hwaddr addr,
>>>>>>                                              int iommu_idx)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>      IOMMUDevice *sdev = container_of(mr, IOMMUDevice, iommu_mr);
>>>>>> +    viommu_interval interval, *mapping_key;
>>>>>> +    viommu_mapping *mapping_value;
>>>>>> +    VirtIOIOMMU *s = sdev->viommu;
>>>>>> +    viommu_endpoint *ep;
>>>>>> +    bool bypass_allowed;
>>>>>>      uint32_t sid;
>>>>>> +    bool found;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    interval.low = addr;
>>>>>> +    interval.high = addr + 1;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      IOMMUTLBEntry entry = {
>>>>>>          .target_as = &address_space_memory,
>>>>>>          .iova = addr,
>>>>>>          .translated_addr = addr,
>>>>>> -        .addr_mask = ~(hwaddr)0,
>>>>>> +        .addr_mask = (1 << ctz32(s->config.page_size_mask)) - 1,
>>>>>>          .perm = IOMMU_NONE,
>>>>>>      };
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +    bypass_allowed = virtio_has_feature(s->acked_features,
>>>>>> +                                        VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be easier to check bypass_allowed here once and then drop the
>>>>> latter [1] and [2] check?
>>>> bypass_allowed does not mean you systematically bypass. You bypass if
>>>> the SID is unknown or if the device is not attached to any domain.
>>>> Otherwise you translate. But maybe I miss your point.
>>>
>>> Ah ok, then could I ask how will this VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS be used?
>>> For example, I think VT-d defines passthrough in a totally different
>>> way in that the PT mark will be stored in the per-device context
>>> entries, then we can allow a specific device to be pass-through when
>>> doing DMA.  That information is explicit (e.g., unknown SID will
>>> always fail the DMA), and per-device.
>>>
>>> Here do you mean that you just don't put a device into any domain to
>>> show it wants to use PT?  Then I'm not sure how do you identify
>>> whether this is a legal PT or a malicious device (e.g., an unknown
>>> device that even does not have any driver bound to it, which will also
>>> satisfy "unknown SID" and "not attached to any domain", iiuc).
>>
>> The virtio-iommu spec currently says:
>>
>> "If the VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS feature is negotiated, all accesses from
>> unattached endpoints are
>> allowed and translated by the IOMMU using the identity function. If the
>> feature is not negotiated, any
>> memory access from an unattached endpoint fails. Upon attaching an
>> endpoint in bypass mode to a new
>> domain, any memory access from the endpoint fails, since the domain does
>> not contain any mapping.
>> "
>>
>> I guess this can serve the purpose of devices doing early accesses,
>> before the guest OS gets the hand and maps them?
> 
> OK, so there's no global enablement knob for virtio-iommu? Hmm... Then:
well this is a global knob. If this is bot negotiated any unmapped
device can PT.

My assumption above must be wrong as this is a negotiated feature so
anyway the virtio-iommu driver should be involved.

I don't really remember the rationale of the feature bit tbh.

In "[virtio-dev] RE: [RFC] virtio-iommu version 0.4 " Jean discussed
that with Kevein. Sorry I cannot find the link.

" If the endpoint is not attached to any address space,
then the device MAY abort the transaction."

Kevin> From definition of BYPASS, it's orthogonal to whether there is an
address space attached, then should we still allow "May abort" behavior?

Jean> The behavior is left as an implementation choice, and I'm not sure
it's worth enforcing in the architecture. If the endpoint isn't attached
to any domain then (unless VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS is negotiated), it
isn't necessarily able to do DMA at all. The virtio-iommu device may
setup DMA mastering lazily, in which case any DMA transaction would
abort, or have setup DMA already, in which case the endpoint can access
MEM_T_BYPASS regions.

Hopefully Jean will remember and comment on this.

Thanks

Eric

> 
>   - This flag is a must for all virtio-iommu emulation, right?
>     (otherwise I can't see how system bootstraps..)
> 
>   - Should this flag be gone right after OS starts (otherwise I think
>     we still have the issue that any malicious device can be seen as
>     in PT mode as default)?  How is that done?
> 
> Thanks,
>