Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@linux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio: let virtio use DMA API when guest RAM is
 protected
Message-ID: <20200220154904-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20200220160606.53156-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200220160606.53156-3-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200220160606.53156-3-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to make virtio core use the DMA API, which
> is in turn necessary, to make IO work with guest memory protection.
> 
> But VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM a.k.a. VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is really a
> different beast: with virtio devices whose implementation runs on an SMP
> CPU we are still fine with doing all the usual optimizations, it is just
> that we need to make sure that the memory protection mechanism does not
> get in the way. The VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM mandates more work on the
> side of the guest (and possibly he host side as well) than we actually
> need.
> 
> An additional benefit of teaching the guest to make the right decision
> (and use DMA API) on it's own is: removing the need, to mandate special
> VM configuration for guests that may run with protection. This is
> especially interesting for s390 as VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM pushes all
> the virtio control structures into the first 2G of guest memory:
> something we don't necessarily want to do per-default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>

This might work for you but it's fragile, since without
VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM hypervisor assumes it gets
GPA's, not DMA addresses.


IOW this looks like another iteration of:

	virtio: Support encrypted memory on powerpc secure guests

which I was under the impression was abandoned as unnecessary.


To summarize, the necessary conditions for a hack along these lines
(using DMA API without VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) are that we detect that:

  - secure guest mode is enabled - so we know that since we don't share
    most memory regular virtio code won't
    work, even though the buggy hypervisor didn't set VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
  - DMA API is giving us addresses that are actually also physical
    addresses
  - Hypervisor is buggy and didn't enable VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
 
I don't see how this patch does this.


> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -243,6 +243,9 @@ static bool vring_use_dma_api(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  	if (!virtio_has_iommu_quirk(vdev))
>  		return true;
>  
> +	if (force_dma_unencrypted(&vdev->dev))
> +		return true;
> +
>  	/* Otherwise, we are left to guess. */
>  	/*
>  	 * In theory, it's possible to have a buggy QEMU-supposed
> -- 
> 2.17.1