lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 08/20] vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:41:00AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:01 PM
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:38:36PM +0800, Liu Yi L wrote:
> > > This patch adds VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD for userspace to bind the
> > vfio
> > > device to an iommufd. No VFIO_DEVICE_UNBIND_IOMMUFD interface is
> > provided
> > > because it's implicitly done when the device fd is closed.
> > >
> > > In concept a vfio device can be bound to multiple iommufds, each hosting
> > > a subset of I/O address spaces attached by this device.
> >
> > I really feel like this many<->many mapping between devices is going
> > to be super-confusing, and therefore make it really hard to be
> > confident we have all the rules right for proper isolation.
>
> Based on new discussion on group ownership part (patch06), I feel this
> many<->many relationship will disappear. The context fd (either container
> or iommufd) will uniquely mark the ownership on a physical device and
> its group. With this design it's impractical to have one device bound
> to multiple iommufds.

That should be a requirement! We have no way to prove that two
iommufds are the same security domain, so devices/groups cannot be
shared.

That is why the API I suggested takes in a struct file to ID the user
security context. A group is accessible only from that single struct
file and no more.

If the first series goes the way I outlined then I think David's
concern about security is strongly solved as the IOMMU layer is
directly managing it with a very clear responsiblity and semantic.

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-29 14:29    [W:0.179 / U:11.948 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site