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;
Subject: Re: [RFC] /dev/ioasid uAPI proposal
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
References: <20210602130053.615db578.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <20210602195404.GI1002214@nvidia.com>
 <20210602143734.72fb4fa4.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <20210602224536.GJ1002214@nvidia.com>
 <20210602205054.3505c9c3.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <20210603123401.GT1002214@nvidia.com>
 <20210603140146.5ce4f08a.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <20210603201018.GF1002214@nvidia.com>
 <20210603154407.6fe33880.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <MWHPR11MB1886469C0136C6523AB158B68C3B9@MWHPR11MB1886.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20210604122830.GK1002214@nvidia.com>
 <20210604092620.16aaf5db.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <815fd392-0870-f410-cbac-859070df1b83@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210604092620.16aaf5db.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/06/21 17:26, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Let's make sure the KVM folks are part of this decision; a re-cap for
> them, KVM currently automatically enables wbinvd emulation when
> potentially non-coherent devices are present which is determined solely
> based on the IOMMU's (or platform's, as exposed via the IOMMU) ability
> to essentially force no-snoop transactions from a device to be cache
> coherent.  This synchronization is triggered via the kvm-vfio device,
> where QEMU creates the device and adds/removes vfio group fd
> descriptors as an additionally layer to prevent the user from enabling
> wbinvd emulation on a whim.
> 
> IIRC, this latter association was considered a security/DoS issue to
> prevent a malicious guest/userspace from creating a disproportionate
> system load.
> 
> Where would KVM stand on allowing more direct userspace control of
> wbinvd behavior?  Would arbitrary control be acceptable or should we
> continue to require it only in association to a device requiring it for
> correct operation.

Extending the scenarios where WBINVD is not a nop is not a problem for 
me.  If possible I wouldn't mind keeping the existing kvm-vfio 
connection via the device, if only because then the decision remains in 
the VFIO camp (whose judgment I trust more than mine on this kind of issue).

For example, would it make sense if *VFIO* (not KVM) gets an API that 
says "I am going to do incoherent DMA"?  Then that API causes WBINVD to 
become not-a-nop even on otherwise coherent platforms.  (Would this make 
sense at all without a hypervisor that indirectly lets userspace execute 
WBINVD?  Perhaps VFIO would benefit from a WBINVD ioctl too).

Paolo