Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932086AbcDTNOs (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:14:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44300 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753910AbcDTNOq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:14:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:14:40 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: David Woodhouse , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Paolo Bonzini , peterx@redhat.com, Cornelia Huck , Stefan Hajnoczi , Kevin Wolf , Amit Shah , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Jason Wang , Alex Williamson , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Borntraeger , Wei Liu , Linux Virtualization , kvm list Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fixup! virtio: convert to use DMA api Message-ID: <20160420161338-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <20160419190520-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160419191914-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1461083204.20056.8.camel@infradead.org> <20160419204907-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160419231437-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20160419235212-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3695 Lines: 77 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:07:01PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:27:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> >> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:26:44PM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 19:20 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > I thought that PLATFORM served that purpose. Woudn't the host > >> >> >> > > advertise PLATFORM support and, if the guest doesn't ack it, the host > >> >> >> > > device would skip translation? Or is that problematic for vfio? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Exactly that's problematic for security. > >> >> >> > You can't allow guest driver to decide whether device skips security. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Right. Because fundamentally, this *isn't* a property of the endpoint > >> >> >> device, and doesn't live in virtio itself. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's a property of the platform IOMMU, and lives there. > >> >> > > >> >> > It's a property of the hypervisor virtio implementation, and lives there. > >> >> > >> >> It is now, but QEMU could, in principle, change the way it thinks > >> >> about it so that virtio devices would use the QEMU DMA API but ask > >> >> QEMU to pass everything through 1:1. This would be entirely invisible > >> >> to guests but would make it be a property of the IOMMU implementation. > >> >> At that point, maybe QEMU could find a (platform dependent) way to > >> >> tell the guest what's going on. > >> >> > >> >> FWIW, as far as I can tell, PPC and SPARC really could, in principle, > >> >> set up 1:1 mappings in the guest so that the virtio devices would work > >> >> regardless of whether QEMU is ignoring the IOMMU or not -- I think the > >> >> only obstacle is that the PPC and SPARC 1:1 mappings are currectly set > >> >> up with an offset. I don't know too much about those platforms, but > >> >> presumably the layout could be changed so that 1:1 really was 1:1. > >> >> > >> >> --Andy > >> > > >> > Sure. Do you see any reason why the decision to do this can't be > >> > keyed off the virtio feature bit? > >> > >> I can think of three types of virtio host: > >> > >> a) virtio always bypasses the IOMMU. > >> > >> b) virtio never bypasses the IOMMU (unless DMAR tables or similar say > >> it does) -- i.e. virtio works like any other device. > >> > >> c) virtio may bypass the IOMMU depending on what the guest asks it to do. > > > > d) some virtio devices bypass the IOMMU and some don't, > > e.g. it's harder to support IOMMU with vhost. > > > > > >> If this is keyed off a virtio feature bit and anyone tries to > >> implement (c), the vfio is going to have a problem. And, if it's > >> keyed off a virtio feature bit, then (a) won't work on Xen or similar > >> setups unless the Xen hypervisor adds a giant and probably unreliable > >> kludge to support it. Meanwhile, 4.6-rc works fine under Xen on a > >> default x86 QEMU configuration, and I'd really like to keep it that > >> way. > >> > >> What could plausibly work using a virtio feature bit is for a device > >> to say "hey, I'm a new device and I support the platform-defined IOMMU > >> mechanism". This bit would be *set* on default IOMMU-less QEMU > >> configurations and on physical virtio PCI cards. > > > > And clear on xen. > > How? QEMU has no idea that the guest is running Xen. I was under impression xen_enabled() is true in QEMU. Am I wrong? -- MST