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: <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>
 <30e5c597-b31c-56de-c75e-950c91947d8f@redhat.com>
 <20210604160336.GA414156@nvidia.com>
 <2c62b5c7-582a-c710-0436-4ac5e8fd8b39@redhat.com>
 <20210604172207.GT1002214@nvidia.com>
 <2d1ad075-bec6-bfb9-ce71-ed873795e973@redhat.com>
 <20210607175926.GJ1002214@nvidia.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <fdb2f38c-da1f-9c12-af44-22df039fcfea@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 09:56:09 +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: <20210607175926.GJ1002214@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/06/21 19:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> The KVM interface is the same kvm-vfio device that exists already.  The
>> userspace API does not need to change at all: adding one VFIO file
>> descriptor with WBINVD enabled to the kvm-vfio device lets the VM use WBINVD
>> functionality (see kvm_vfio_update_coherency).
>
> The problem is we are talking about adding a new /dev/ioasid FD and it
> won't fit into the existing KVM VFIO FD interface. There are lots of
> options here, one is to add new ioctls that specifically use the new
> FD, the other is to somehow use VFIO as a proxy to carry things to the
> /dev/ioasid FD code.

Exactly.

>> Alternatively you can add a KVM_DEV_IOASID_{ADD,DEL} pair of ioctls. But it
>> seems useless complication compared to just using what we have now, at least
>> while VMs only use IOASIDs via VFIO.
>
> The simplest is KVM_ENABLE_WBINVD(<fd security proof>) and be done
> with it.

The simplest one is KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_ADD/DEL, that already exists and 
also covers hot-unplug.  The second simplest one is KVM_DEV_IOASID_ADD/DEL.

It need not be limited to wbinvd support, it's just a generic "let VMs 
do what userspace can do if it has access to this file descriptor". 
That it enables guest WBINVD is an implementation detail.

>> Either way, there should be no policy attached to the add/delete operations.
>> KVM users want to add the VFIO (or IOASID) file descriptors to the device
>> independent of WBINVD.  If userspace wants/needs to apply its own policy on
>> whether to enable WBINVD or not, they can do it on the VFIO/IOASID side:
> 
> Why does KVM need to know abut IOASID's? I don't think it can do
> anything with this general information.

Indeed, it only uses them as the security proofs---either VFIO or IOASID 
file descriptors can be used as such.

Paolo