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:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "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: <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>
 <815fd392-0870-f410-cbac-859070df1b83@redhat.com>
 <20210604155016.GR1002214@nvidia.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <30e5c597-b31c-56de-c75e-950c91947d8f@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:57:19 +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: <20210604155016.GR1002214@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/06/21 17:50, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> 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).
> Really the question to answer is what "security proof" do you want
> before the wbinvd can be enabled

I don't want a security proof myself; I want to trust VFIO to make the 
right judgment and I'm happy to defer to it (via the KVM-VFIO device).

Given how KVM is just a device driver inside Linux, VMs should be a 
slightly more roundabout way to do stuff that is accessible to bare 
metal; not a way to gain extra privilege.

Paolo

>   1) User has access to a device that can issue no-snoop TLPS
>   2) User has access to an IOMMU that can not block no-snoop (today)
>   3) Require CAP_SYS_RAW_IO
>   4) Anyone
> 
> #1 is an improvement because it allows userspace to enable wbinvd and
> no-snoop optimizations based on user choice
> 
> #2 is where we are today and wbinvd effectively becomes a fixed
> platform choice. Userspace has no say
> 
> #3 is "there is a problem, but not so serious, root is powerful
>     enough to override"