Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature

[Halil Pasic]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:39:24 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I find the subject (commit short) sub optimal. The 'arch' is already
accepting devices 'without IOMMU feature'. What you are introducing is
the ability to reject.

> 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.
> 

I don't particularly like the commit message. In general, I believe
using access_platform instead of iommu_platform would really benefit us.

> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/s390/mm/init.c     | 6 ++++++
>  drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 9 +++++++++
>  include/linux/virtio.h  | 2 ++
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> index 87b2d024e75a..3f04ad09650f 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
>  #include <asm/kasan.h>
>  #include <asm/dma-mapping.h>
>  #include <asm/uv.h>
> +#include <linux/virtio.h>

arch/s390/mm/init.c including virtio.h looks a bit strange to me, but
if Heiko and Vasily don't mind, neither do I.

>  
>  pgd_t swapper_pg_dir[PTRS_PER_PGD] __section(.bss..swapper_pg_dir);
>  
> @@ -162,6 +163,11 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
>  	return is_prot_virt_guest();
>  }
>  
> +int arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev) 

Maybe prefixing the name with virtio_ would help provide the
proper context.

> +{
> +	return is_prot_virt_guest();
> +}
> +
>  /* protected virtualization */
>  static void pv_init(void)
>  {
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> index a977e32a88f2..30091089bee8 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> @@ -167,6 +167,11 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, unsigned int status)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_add_status);
>  
> +int __weak arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

Adding some people that could be interested in overriding this as well
to the cc list.

>  int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>  {
>  	int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> @@ -179,6 +184,10 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>  	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	if (arch_needs_iommu_platform(dev) &&
> +		!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> +		return -EIO;
> +

Why EIO?

Overall, I think it is a good idea to have something that is going to
protect us from this scenario.

Regards,
Halil

>  	virtio_add_status(dev, VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK);
>  	status = dev->config->get_status(dev);
>  	if (!(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FEATURES_OK)) {
> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio.h b/include/linux/virtio.h
> index a493eac08393..2c46b310c38c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/virtio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/virtio.h
> @@ -195,4 +195,6 @@ void unregister_virtio_driver(struct virtio_driver *drv);
>  #define module_virtio_driver(__virtio_driver) \
>  	module_driver(__virtio_driver, register_virtio_driver, \
>  			unregister_virtio_driver)
> +
> +int arch_needs_iommu_platform(struct virtio_device *dev);
>  #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_H */