Pierre Morel
2020-Sep-07 09:39 UTC
[PATCH v11 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
Hi all, The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture to validate VIRTIO device features. The tests are back to virtio_finalize_features. No more argument for the architecture callback which only reports if the architecture needs guest memory access restrictions for VIRTIO. I renamed the callback to arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access, the config option to ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS, and VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM to VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM. Regards, Pierre Pierre Morel (2): virtio: let arch advertise guest's memory access restrictions s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + arch/s390/mm/init.c | 10 ++++++++++ drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ include/linux/virtio_config.h | 10 ++++++++++ 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+) -- 2.17.1 Changelog to v11: - replaced VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM with VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM to v10: - removed virtio_config.h unnecessary include - wording (Connie) to v9: - move virtio tests back to virtio_finalize_features (Connie) - remove virtio device argument to v8: - refactoring by using an optional callback (Connie) to v7: - typo in warning message (Connie) to v6: - rewording warning messages (Connie, Halil) to v5: - return directly from S390 arch_validate_virtio_features() when the guest is not protected. (Connie) - Somme rewording (Connie, Michael) - moved back code from arch/s390/ ...kernel/uv.c to ...mm/init.c (Christian) to v4: - separate virtio and arch code (Pierre) - moved code from arch/s390/mm/init.c to arch/s390/kernel/uv.c (as interpreted from Heiko's comment) - moved validation inside the arch code (Connie) - moved the call to arch validation before VIRTIO_F_1 test (Michael) to v3: - add warning (Connie, Christian) - add comment (Connie) - change hook name (Halil, Connie) to v2: - put the test in virtio_finalize_features() (Connie) - put the test inside VIRTIO core (Jason) - pass a virtio device as parameter (Halil)
Pierre Morel
2020-Sep-07 09:39 UTC
[PATCH v11 1/2] virtio: let arch advertise guest's memory access restrictions
An architecture may restrict host access to guest memory, e.g. IBM s390 Secure Execution or AMD SEV. Provide a new Kconfig entry the architecture can select, CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS, when it provides the arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access callback to advertise to VIRTIO common code when the architecture restricts memory access from the host. The common code can then fail the probe for any device where VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is required, but not set. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> --- drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 6 ++++++ drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ include/linux/virtio_config.h | 10 ++++++++++ 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/virtio/Kconfig b/drivers/virtio/Kconfig index 5c92e4a50882..3999b411624c 100644 --- a/drivers/virtio/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/virtio/Kconfig @@ -6,6 +6,12 @@ config VIRTIO bus, such as CONFIG_VIRTIO_PCI, CONFIG_VIRTIO_MMIO, CONFIG_RPMSG or CONFIG_S390_GUEST. +config ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS + bool + help + This option is selected if the architecture may need to enforce + VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. + menuconfig VIRTIO_MENU bool "Virtio drivers" default y diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c index a977e32a88f2..a2b3f12e10a2 100644 --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c @@ -176,6 +176,21 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev) if (ret) return ret; + ret = arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(); + if (ret) { + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) { + dev_warn(&dev->dev, + "device must provide VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } + + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)) { + dev_warn(&dev->dev, + "device must provide VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } + } + if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) return 0; diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_config.h b/include/linux/virtio_config.h index 8fe857e27ef3..3f697c8c8205 100644 --- a/include/linux/virtio_config.h +++ b/include/linux/virtio_config.h @@ -540,4 +540,14 @@ static inline void virtio_cwrite64(struct virtio_device *vdev, virtio_cread_le((vdev), structname, member, ptr); \ _r; \ }) + +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS +int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void); +#else +static inline int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void) +{ + return 0; +} +#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS */ + #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_CONFIG_H */ -- 2.17.1
Pierre Morel
2020-Sep-07 09:39 UTC
[PATCH v11 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
If protected virtualization is active on s390, VIRTIO has only retricted access to the guest memory. Define CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS and export arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access to advertize VIRTIO if that's the case, preventing a host error on access attempt. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com> --- arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + arch/s390/mm/init.c | 10 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig index b29fcc66ec39..938246200d39 100644 --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig @@ -820,6 +820,7 @@ menu "Virtualization" config PROTECTED_VIRTUALIZATION_GUEST def_bool n prompt "Protected virtualization guest support" + select ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS help Select this option, if you want to be able to run this kernel as a protected virtualization KVM guest. diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c index 0d282081dc1f..f40b9b63d3d6 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c @@ -160,6 +160,16 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev) return is_prot_virt_guest(); } +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS + +int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void) +{ + return is_prot_virt_guest(); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access); + +#endif + /* protected virtualization */ static void pv_init(void) { -- 2.17.1
Halil Pasic
2020-Sep-07 22:22 UTC
[PATCH v11 1/2] virtio: let arch advertise guest's memory access restrictions
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:39:06 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote:> An architecture may restrict host access to guest memory, > e.g. IBM s390 Secure Execution or AMD SEV. > > Provide a new Kconfig entry the architecture can select, > CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS, when it provides > the arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access callback to advertise > to VIRTIO common code when the architecture restricts memory access > from the host. > > The common code can then fail the probe for any device where > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is required, but not set. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> [..]> > +config ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS > + bool > + help > + This option is selected if the architecture may need to enforce > + VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. > +A small nit: you use F_ACCESS_PLATFORM everywhere but here. Regards, Halil
Halil Pasic
2020-Sep-07 22:37 UTC
[PATCH v11 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:39:07 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote:> If protected virtualization is active on s390, VIRTIO has only retricted > access to the guest memory. > Define CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_RESTRICTED_VIRTIO_MEMORY_ACCESS and export > arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access to advertize VIRTIO if that's > the case, preventing a host error on access attempt.The description is a little inaccurate, but I don't care hence the r-b. The function arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access() returning true can not prevent the host from attempting to access memory if it decides to do so. And as far as I know there was no host error on access attempt. The page gets exported, and the host will operate on the encrypted page. But in the end we do run into trouble, which is usually fatal for the guest (not the host). What we actually do here is the following. If we detect an ill configured device we fail it (device status field), because attempting to drive it is a recipe for disaster.> > Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com>
Halil Pasic
2020-Sep-07 22:39 UTC
[PATCH v11 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:39:05 +0200 Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote:> Hi all, > > The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture > to validate VIRTIO device features.Michael, is this going in via your tree?
Cornelia Huck
2020-Sep-08 06:55 UTC
[PATCH v11 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 00:39:51 +0200 Halil Pasic <pasic at linux.ibm.com> wrote:> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:39:05 +0200 > Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture > > to validate VIRTIO device features. > > Michael, is this going in via your tree? >I believe Michael's tree is the right place for this, but I can also queue it if I get an ack on patch 1.
Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-Sep-08 07:57 UTC
[PATCH v11 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 12:39:51AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:39:05 +0200 > Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The goal of the series is to give a chance to the architecture > > to validate VIRTIO device features. > > Michael, is this going in via your tree?I guess so. Still not really happy about second-guessing the hypervisor, but this got acks from others so maybe I'm wrong in this instance. Won't be the first time. -- MST
kernel test robot
2020-Sep-08 13:39 UTC
[PATCH v11 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection
Hi Pierre, I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve: [auto build test WARNING on s390/features] [also build test WARNING on linus/master v5.9-rc4 next-20200903] [cannot apply to linux/master kvms390/next] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Pierre-Morel/s390-virtio-let-arch-validate-VIRTIO-features/20200907-174101 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git features config: s390-randconfig-r006-20200908 (attached as .config) compiler: clang version 12.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 5f5a0bb0872a9673bad08b38bc0b14c42263902a) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross # install s390 cross compiling tool for clang build # apt-get install binutils-s390x-linux-gnu # save the attached .config to linux build tree COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross ARCH=s390 If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): #define __le32_to_cpu(x) __swab32((__force __u32)(__le32)(x)) ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:119:21: note: expanded from macro '__swab32' ___constant_swab32(x) : \ ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:20:12: note: expanded from macro '___constant_swab32' (((__u32)(x) & (__u32)0x0000ff00UL) << 8) | \ ^ In file included from arch/s390/mm/init.c:20: In file included from include/linux/swap.h:9: In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:22: In file included from include/linux/writeback.h:14: In file included from include/linux/blk-cgroup.h:23: In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:25: In file included from include/linux/scatterlist.h:9: In file included from arch/s390/include/asm/io.h:72: include/asm-generic/io.h:490:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr)); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:34:59: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu' #define __le32_to_cpu(x) __swab32((__force __u32)(__le32)(x)) ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:119:21: note: expanded from macro '__swab32' ___constant_swab32(x) : \ ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:21:12: note: expanded from macro '___constant_swab32' (((__u32)(x) & (__u32)0x00ff0000UL) >> 8) | \ ^ In file included from arch/s390/mm/init.c:20: In file included from include/linux/swap.h:9: In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:22: In file included from include/linux/writeback.h:14: In file included from include/linux/blk-cgroup.h:23: In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:25: In file included from include/linux/scatterlist.h:9: In file included from arch/s390/include/asm/io.h:72: include/asm-generic/io.h:490:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr)); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:34:59: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu' #define __le32_to_cpu(x) __swab32((__force __u32)(__le32)(x)) ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:119:21: note: expanded from macro '__swab32' ___constant_swab32(x) : \ ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:22:12: note: expanded from macro '___constant_swab32' (((__u32)(x) & (__u32)0xff000000UL) >> 24))) ^ In file included from arch/s390/mm/init.c:20: In file included from include/linux/swap.h:9: In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:22: In file included from include/linux/writeback.h:14: In file included from include/linux/blk-cgroup.h:23: In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:25: In file included from include/linux/scatterlist.h:9: In file included from arch/s390/include/asm/io.h:72: include/asm-generic/io.h:490:61: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] val = __le32_to_cpu((__le32 __force)__raw_readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr)); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h:34:59: note: expanded from macro '__le32_to_cpu' #define __le32_to_cpu(x) __swab32((__force __u32)(__le32)(x)) ^ include/uapi/linux/swab.h:120:12: note: expanded from macro '__swab32' __fswab32(x)) ^ In file included from arch/s390/mm/init.c:20: In file included from include/linux/swap.h:9: In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:22: In file included from include/linux/writeback.h:14: In file included from include/linux/blk-cgroup.h:23: In file included from include/linux/blkdev.h:25: In file included from include/linux/scatterlist.h:9: In file included from arch/s390/include/asm/io.h:72: include/asm-generic/io.h:501:33: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writeb(value, PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:511:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writew((u16 __force)cpu_to_le16(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:521:59: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] __raw_writel((u32 __force)cpu_to_le32(value), PCI_IOBASE + addr); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:609:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:617:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:625:20: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] readsl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:634:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesb(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:643:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesw(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^ include/asm-generic/io.h:652:21: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has undefined behavior [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic] writesl(PCI_IOBASE + addr, buffer, count); ~~~~~~~~~~ ^>> arch/s390/mm/init.c:165:5: warning: no previous prototype for function 'arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access' [-Wmissing-prototypes]int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void) ^ arch/s390/mm/init.c:165:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void) ^ static In file included from arch/s390/mm/init.c:11: In file included from include/linux/signal.h:5: In file included from include/linux/bug.h:5: In file included from arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h:68: In file included from include/asm-generic/bug.h:20: In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:12: In file included from include/linux/bitops.h:29: arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h:69:4: error: invalid operand in inline asm: 'oi $0,${1:b}' "oi %0,%b1\n" ^ arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h:69:4: error: invalid operand in inline asm: 'oi $0,${1:b}' arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h:69:4: error: invalid operand in inline asm: 'oi $0,${1:b}' 21 warnings and 3 errors generated. # https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/e047ab912af7232ee2d97fd0cb83046c10aca7cf git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux git fetch --no-tags linux-review Pierre-Morel/s390-virtio-let-arch-validate-VIRTIO-features/20200907-174101 git checkout e047ab912af7232ee2d97fd0cb83046c10aca7cf vim +/arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access +165 arch/s390/mm/init.c 164 > 165 int arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access(void) 166 { 167 return is_prot_virt_guest(); 168 } 169 EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_has_restricted_virtio_memory_access); 170 --- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all at lists.01.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: .config.gz Type: application/gzip Size: 19570 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20200908/94a29aba/attachment-0001.gz>
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [PATCH v12 1/2] virtio: let arch advertise guest's memory access restrictions
- [PATCH v12 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
- [PATCH v12 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
- [PATCH v9 1/2] virtio: let arch advertise guest's memory access restrictions
- [PATCH v11 0/2] s390: virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features