Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:49:22 +0100
From:   Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@intel.com>,
        "Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@intel.com>,
        "jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] vfio: expose virtual Shared Virtual Addressing
 to VMs
Message-ID: <20200622124922.GB15683@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
References: <1591877734-66527-1-git-send-email-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20200615100214.GC1491454@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
 <MWHPR11MB16451F1E4748DF97D6A1DDD48C9D0@MWHPR11MB1645.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200616154928.GF1491454@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
 <20200616160916.GC11838@xz-x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wq9mPyueHGvFACwf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616160916.GC11838@xz-x1>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--wq9mPyueHGvFACwf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:09:16PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 04:49:28PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Isolation between applications is preserved but there is no isolation
> > between the device and the application itself. The application needs to
> > trust the device.
> >=20
> > Examples:
> >=20
> > 1. The device can snoop secret data from readable pages in the
> >    application's virtual memory space.
> >=20
> > 2. The device can gain arbitrary execution on the CPU by overwriting
> >    control flow addresses (e.g. function pointers, stack return
> >    addresses) in writable pages.
>=20
> To me, SVA seems to be that "middle layer" of secure where it's not as sa=
fe as
> VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA which has buffer level granularity of control (but of =
course
> we pay overhead on buffer setups and on-the-fly translations), however it=
's far
> better than DMA with no IOMMU which can ruin the whole host/guest, because
> after all we do a lot of isolations as process based.
>=20
> IMHO it's the same as when we see a VM (or the QEMU process) as a whole a=
long
> with the guest code.  In some cases we don't care if the guest did some b=
ad
> things to mess up with its own QEMU process.  It is still ideal if we can=
 even
> stop the guest from doing so, but when it's not easy to do it the ideal w=
ay, we
> just lower the requirement to not spread the influence to the host and ot=
her
> VMs.

Makes sense.

Stefan

--wq9mPyueHGvFACwf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhpWov9P5fNqsNXdanKSrs4Grc8gFAl7wqNIACgkQnKSrs4Gr
c8hI8gf/caTxzWohWdHk0/Kop0H0CHDO065rgRJxZWIoB6f9resPUp7w3XbfOSzJ
cSXRukN+jPVq04Wh30cOpxJKT1OvdWTr6qgEa2u8mKZPCM3tftAN6j15gum7wcm+
LQhpJaHes/xES7VI3MbqoOtxVzxQ+kS5ve7fDxWSxVbE8fi10WGll5lx4eH+AOqC
nWbqRXKCb67Ya4aPiW+HZrs4zxcDe0CjIPqYLsGIRhC03VbMetbzygcxa6jMvibS
zye/aP0RQysbVYVgWlVvuGXvBwvJEDWE2d6AsRrVsXuLI2Vgstarzf0ttUxQuVRk
gY8hL0ENtePg6Iub4OC/idFoMffoZw==
=EiVH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wq9mPyueHGvFACwf--