lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] VFIO driver: Non-privileged user level PCI drivers
    Date
    On Sunday 13 June 2010 03:23:39 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Tom Lyon wrote:
    > > [ bunch of stuff about MSI-X checking and IOMMUs and config registers...]
    > >
    > > OK, here's the thing. The IOMMU API today does not do squat about
    > > dealing with interrupts. Interrupts are special because the APIC
    > > addresses are not each in their own page. Yes, the IOMMU hardware
    > > supports it (at least Intel), and there's some Intel intr remapping
    > > code (not AMD), but it doesn't look like it is enough.
    >
    > The iommu book from AMD seems to say that interrupt remapping table
    > address is taken from the device table entry. So hardware support seems
    > to be there, and to me it looks like it should be enough.
    > Need to look at the iommu/msi code some more to figure out
    > whether what linux does is handling this correctly -
    > if it doesn't we need to fix that.
    >
    > > Therefore, we must not allow the user level driver to diddle the MSI
    > > or MSI-X areas - either in config space or in the device memory space.
    >
    > It won't help.
    > Consider that you want to let a userspace driver control
    > the device with DMA capabilities.
    >
    > So if there is a range of addresses that device
    > can write into that can break host, these writes
    > can be triggered by userspace. Limiting
    > userspace access to MSI registers won't help:
    > you need a way to protect host from the device.

    OK, after more investigation, I realize you are right.
    We definitely need the IOMMU protection for interrupts, and
    if we have it, a lot of the code for config space protection is pointless.
    It does seem that the Intel intr_remapping code does what we want
    (accidentally) but that the AMD iommu code does not yet do any
    interrupt remapping. Joerg - can you comment? On the roadmap?

    I should have an AMD system w IOMMU in a couple of days, so I
    can check this out.

    >
    > > If the device doesn't have its MSI-X registers in nice page aligned
    > > areas, then it is not "well-behaved" and it is S.O.L. The SR-IOV spec
    > > recommends that devices be designed the well-behaved way.
    > >
    > > When the code in vfio_pci_config speaks of "virtualization" it means
    > > that there are fake registers which the user driver can read or write,
    > > but do not affect the real registers. BARs are one case, MSI regs
    > > another. The PCI vendor and device ID are virtual because SR-IOV
    > > doesn't supply them but I wanted the user driver to find them in the
    > > same old place.
    >
    > Sorry, I still don't understand why do we bother. All this is already
    > implemented in userspace. Why can't we just use this existing userspace
    > implementation? It seems that all kernel needs to do is prevent
    > userspace from writing BARs.

    I assume the userspace of which you speak is qemu? This is not what I'm
    doing with vfio - I'm interested in the HPC networking model of direct
    user space access to the network.

    > Why can't we replace all this complexity with basically:
    >
    > if (addr <= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_5 && addr + len >= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0)
    > return -ENOPERM;
    >
    > And maybe another register or two. Most registers should be fine.
    >
    > > [ Re: Hotplug and Suspend/Resume]
    > > There are *plenty* of real drivers - brand new ones - which don't
    > > bother with these today. Yeah, I can see adding them to the framework
    > > someday - but if there's no urgent need then it is way down the
    > > priority list.
    >
    > Well, for kernel drivers everything mostly works out of the box, it is
    > handled by the PCI subsystem. So some kind of framework will need to be
    > added for userspace drivers as well. And I suspect this issue won't be
    > fixable later without breaking applications.

    Whatever works out of the box for the kernel drivers which don't implement
    suspend/resume will work for the user level drivers which don't.
    >
    > > Meanwhile, the other uses beckon.
    >
    > Which other uses? I thought the whole point was fixing
    > what's broken with current kvm implementation.
    > So it seems to be we should not rush it ignoring existing issues such as
    > hotplug.
    Non-kvm cases. That don't care about suspend/resume.






    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-17 23:19    [W:0.025 / U:1.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site