On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 11:41:03AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Between me trying to get rid of iommu_present() and Mario wanting to
> support the AMD equivalent of DMAR_PLATFORM_OPT_IN, scrutiny has shown
> that the iommu_dma_protection attribute is being far too optimistic.
> Even if an IOMMU might be present for some PCI segment in the system,
> that doesn't necessarily mean it provides translation for the device(s)
> we care about. Furthermore, all that DMAR_PLATFORM_OPT_IN really does
> is tell us that memory was protected before the kernel was loaded, and
> prevent the user from disabling the intel-iommu driver entirely. While
> that lets us assume kernel integrity, what matters for actual runtime
> DMA protection is whether we trust individual devices, based on the
> "external facing" property that we expect firmware to describe for
> Thunderbolt ports.
>
> It's proven challenging to determine the appropriate ports accurately
> given the variety of possible topologies, so while still not getting a
> perfect answer, by putting enough faith in firmware we can at least get
> a good bit closer. If we can see that any device near a Thunderbolt NHI
> has all the requisites for Kernel DMA Protection, chances are that it
> *is* a relevant port, but moreover that implies that firmware is playing
> the game overall, so we'll use that to assume that all Thunderbolt ports
> should be correctly marked and thus will end up fully protected.
>
> CC: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>