DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"mtosatti@redhat.com" <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"bluca@debian.org" <bluca@debian.org>,
	"jerinjacobk@gmail.com" <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
	"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] vfio/pci: SR-IOV support
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:36:46 +0800
Message-ID: <d9ac428f-c764-014c-db5b-3f94d8f3e626@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200306092445.1bd4611c@x1.home>

On 2020/3/7 上午12:24, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:35:21 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 2020/3/6 上午1:14, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> From: Alex Williamson
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM
>>>>>> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is
>>>>>> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on
>>>>>> upstream discussions.  The primary user visible difference is that
>>>>>> option parsing is now much more strict.  If a vf_token option is
>>>>>> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error.  As a result of
>>>>>> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of
>>>>>> setting the vf_token.  This seems like a more user friendly API than
>>>>>> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and
>>>>>> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is
>>>>>> always either used or rejected.
>>>>>> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only
>>>>>> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether
>>>>>> we absolutely need this new ioctl.  Currently I'm keeping it because I
>>>>>> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support
>>>>>> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF
>>>>>> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in
>>>>>> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical.
>>>>>> Series overview (same as provided with v1):
>>>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>>>> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive
>>>>>> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO.  There's an immediate need
>>>>>> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use
>>>>> Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion?
>>>>>> cases in virtualization.  We've been reluctant to add this support
>>>>>> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the
>>>>>> VF device and PF driver.  Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial
>>>>>> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation,
>>>>>> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs
>>>>>> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state
>>>>>> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver.
>>>>> Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable
>>>>> to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages.
>>>>> For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the
>>>>> virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user),
>>>>> and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc.
>>>> AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But
>>>> yes, the datapath could be offloaded.
>>>> But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than
>>>> using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection
>>>> (AF_UINX) is secure.
>>>>>     Of course the para-
>>>>> virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you
>>>>> mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication
>>>>> which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries
>>>>> to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people
>>>>> tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer. 😊
>>>>> +Jason.
>>>> I'm not quite sure e.g allowing userspace PF driver with kernel VF
>>>> driver would not break the assumption of kernel security model. At least
>>>> we should forbid a unprivileged PF driver running in userspace.
>>> It might be useful to have your opinion on this series, because that's
>>> exactly what we're trying to do here.  Various environments, DPDK
>>> specifically, want a userspace PF driver.  This series takes steps to
>>> mitigate the risk of having such a driver, such as requiring this VF
>>> token interface to extend the VFIO interface and validate participation
>>> around a PF that is not considered trusted by the kernel.
>> I may miss something. But what happens if:
>> - PF driver is running by unprivileged user
>> - PF is programmed to send translated DMA request
>> - Then unprivileged user can mangle the kernel data
> ATS is a security risk regardless of SR-IOV, how does this change it?
> Thanks,

My understanding is the ATS only happen for some bugous devices. Some 
hardware has on-chip IOMMU, this probably means unprivileged userspace 
PF driver can control the on-chip IOMMU in this case.


> Alex
>>> We also set
>>> a driver_override to try to make sure no host kernel driver can
>>> automatically bind to a VF of a user owned PF, only vfio-pci, but we
>>> don't prevent the admin from creating configurations where the VFs are
>>> used by other host kernel drivers.
>>> I think the question Kevin is inquiring about is whether virtio devices
>>> are susceptible to the type of collaborative, shared key environment
>>> we're creating here.  For example, can a VM or qemu have access to
>>> reset a virtio device in a way that could affect other devices, ex. FLR
>>> on a PF that could interfere with VF operation.  Thanks,
>> Right, but I'm not sure it can be done only via virtio or need support
>> from transport (e.g PCI).
>> Thanks
>>> Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-09  3:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-19 18:53 Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:53 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/7] vfio: Include optional device match in vfio_device_ops callbacks Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/7] vfio/pci: Implement match ops Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/7] vfio/pci: Introduce VF token Alex Williamson
2020-02-25  2:59   ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-05 18:17     ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-06  8:32       ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-06 15:39         ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-07  1:04           ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-09  0:46             ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-09  1:22               ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-09  1:33               ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-09 15:35                 ` Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/7] vfio: Introduce VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl and first user Alex Williamson
2020-02-27 17:34   ` Cornelia Huck
2020-03-05 20:51     ` Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/7] vfio/pci: Add sriov_configure support Alex Williamson
2020-02-25  3:08   ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-05 18:22     ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-05 20:08       ` Ajit Khaparde
2020-03-06  7:57       ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-06 22:17         ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-07  1:35           ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-09  0:46             ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-09  1:48               ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-09 14:56                 ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-06  9:45       ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-06 15:50         ` Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/7] vfio/pci: Remove dev_fmt definition Alex Williamson
2020-02-19 18:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 7/7] vfio/pci: Cleanup .probe() exit paths Alex Williamson
2020-02-25  2:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] vfio/pci: SR-IOV support Tian, Kevin
2020-02-25  6:09   ` Jason Wang
2020-03-05 17:14     ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-06  3:35       ` Jason Wang
2020-03-06 16:24         ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-09  3:36           ` Jason Wang [this message]
2020-03-09 14:45             ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-05 17:33   ` Alex Williamson
2020-03-06  9:21     ` Tian, Kevin
2020-03-05  6:38 ` Vamsi Krishna Attunuru

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d9ac428f-c764-014c-db5b-3f94d8f3e626@redhat.com \
    --to=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git