Virtualization - Jul 2020 - [PATCH v4 2/2] s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection

Hi all,

I changed the patch subject to reflect the content, becoming more
general.

1) I removed the ack from Christian and Jason even far as
   I understand they gave it for the functionality more than for the
   implementation.
   @Jason, @Christian, please can I get back your acked-by with these changes?

2) previous patch had another name:
   [PATCH v3 0/1] s390: virtio: let arch choose to accept devices without IOMMU
feature
   id: Message-Id: <1592390637-17441-2-git-send-email-pmorel at
linux.ibm.com>

3) The new version generalize the validation of the features by the
   architecture, making it not IOMMU_PLATFORM specific anymore inside
   virtio.c

   The architecture specific code for s390 is now testing the virtio
   features.

4) Since I reworked the patch I also moved the arch specific code
   from arch/s390/mm/init.c to arch/s390/kernel/to uv.c

5) Finaly, I splitted the patch into generic virtio and arch
   specific code.

Regards,
Pierre

Pierre Morel (2):
  virtio: let arch validate VIRTIO features
  s390: virtio: PV needs VIRTIO I/O device protection

 arch/s390/kernel/uv.c         | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/virtio/virtio.c       | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/virtio_config.h |  1 +
 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

-- 
2.25.1

Changelog

to v4:

- separate virtio and arch code
  (Pierre)

- moved code from arch/s390/mm/init.c to arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
  (Heiko)

- 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)

An architecture may need to validate the VIRTIO devices features
based on architecture specificities.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/virtio/virtio.c       | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/virtio_config.h |  1 +
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
index a977e32a88f2..3179a8aa76f5 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
@@ -167,6 +167,21 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, unsigned
int status)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_add_status);
 
+/*
+ * arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform - provide arch specific hook when
finalizing
+ *				      features for VIRTIO device dev
+ * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
+ *
+ * Permits the platform to provide architecture specific functionality when
+ * devices features are finalized. This is the default implementation.
+ * Architecture implementations can override this.
+ */
+
+int __weak arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
 {
 	int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
@@ -176,6 +191,10 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
+	ret = arch_validate_virtio_features(dev);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
 	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 bb4cc4910750..3f4117adf311 100644
--- a/include/linux/virtio_config.h
+++ b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
@@ -459,4 +459,5 @@ static inline void virtio_cwrite64(struct virtio_device
*vdev,
 		_r;							\
 	})
 
+int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev);
 #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_CONFIG_H */
-- 
2.25.1

S390, protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host access
needs to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the use of
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 and VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
---
 arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
index c296e5c8dbf9..106330f6eda1 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 #include <linux/memblock.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
 #include <linux/swap.h>
+#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
 #include <asm/facility.h>
 #include <asm/sections.h>
 #include <asm/uv.h>
@@ -413,3 +414,27 @@ static int __init uv_info_init(void)
 }
 device_initcall(uv_info_init);
 #endif
+
+/*
+ * arch_validate_virtio_iommu_platform
+ * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
+ *
+ * Return value: returns -ENODEV if any features of the
+ *               device breaks the protected virtualization
+ *               0 otherwise.
+ */
+int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
+{
+	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
+		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
+		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
+	}
+
+	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
+		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
+			 "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
+		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
-- 
2.25.1

On Tue,  7 Jul 2020 10:44:36 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> An architecture may need to validate the VIRTIO devices features
> based on architecture specificities.
s/specifities/specifics/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio.c       | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/virtio_config.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> index a977e32a88f2..3179a8aa76f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> @@ -167,6 +167,21 @@ void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev,
unsigned int status)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_add_status);
>  
> +/*
> + * arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform - provide arch specific hook when
finalizing
s/arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform/arch_validate_virtio_features/

:)
> + *				      features for VIRTIO device dev
> + * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
> + *
> + * Permits the platform to provide architecture specific functionality
when
s/provide architecture specific functionality/handle architecture-specific
requirements/

?
> + * devices features are finalized. This is the default implementation.
s/devices/device/
> + * Architecture implementations can override this.
> + */
> +
> +int __weak arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
>  {
>  	int ret = dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> @@ -176,6 +191,10 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device
*dev)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	ret = arch_validate_virtio_features(dev);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
>  	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 bb4cc4910750..3f4117adf311 100644
> --- a/include/linux/virtio_config.h
> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_config.h
> @@ -459,4 +459,5 @@ static inline void virtio_cwrite64(struct virtio_device
*vdev,
>  		_r;							\
>  	})
>  
> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev);
>  #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_CONFIG_H */
With the wording fixed,

Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>

On Tue,  7 Jul 2020 10:44:37 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> S390, protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host access
> needs to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the use of
> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 and VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
Hm... what about:

"If protected virtualization is active on s390, the virtio queues are
not accessible to the host, unless VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has been
negotiated. Use the new arch_validate_virtio_features() interface to
enforce this."
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> index c296e5c8dbf9..106330f6eda1 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
>  #include <linux/pagemap.h>
>  #include <linux/swap.h>
> +#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
>  #include <asm/facility.h>
>  #include <asm/sections.h>
>  #include <asm/uv.h>
> @@ -413,3 +414,27 @@ static int __init uv_info_init(void)
>  }
>  device_initcall(uv_info_init);
>  #endif
> +
> +/*
> + * arch_validate_virtio_iommu_platform
s/arch_validate_virtio_iommu_platform/arch_validate_virtio_features/
> + * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
> + *
> + * Return value: returns -ENODEV if any features of the
> + *               device breaks the protected virtualization
> + *               0 otherwise.
I don't think you need to specify the contract here: that belongs to
the definition in the virtio core. What about simply adding a sentence
"Return an error if required features are missing on a guest running
with protected virtualization." ?
> + */
> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> +{
Maybe jump out immediately if the guest is not protected?
> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
> +		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> +			 "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
> +		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
> +	}
if (!is_prot_virt_guest())
	return 0;

if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
	dev_warn(&dev->dev,
                 "legacy virtio is incompatible with protected
guests");
	return -ENODEV;
}

if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
	dev_warn(&dev->dev,
		 "device does not work with limited memory access in protected
guests");
	return -ENODEV;
}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

On 07.07.20 10:44, Pierre Morel wrote:
> S390, protecting the guest memory against unauthorized host access
> needs to enforce VIRTIO I/O device protection through the use of
> VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 and VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> index c296e5c8dbf9..106330f6eda1 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
>  #include <linux/pagemap.h>
>  #include <linux/swap.h>
> +#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
>  #include <asm/facility.h>
>  #include <asm/sections.h>
>  #include <asm/uv.h>
> @@ -413,3 +414,27 @@ static int __init uv_info_init(void)
>  }
>  device_initcall(uv_info_init);
>  #endif
> +
> +/*
> + * arch_validate_virtio_iommu_platform
> + * @dev: the VIRTIO device being added
> + *
> + * Return value: returns -ENODEV if any features of the
> + *               device breaks the protected virtualization
> + *               0 otherwise.
> + */
> +int arch_validate_virtio_features(struct virtio_device *dev)
> +{
> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "device must provide
VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1\n");
I think you only want to warn if is_prot_virt_guest is true? We certainly
want to be able to run as a guest of older hypervisors with virtio 0.95, no?

> +		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {
> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> +			 "device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n");
same here. 
> +		return is_prot_virt_guest() ? -ENODEV : 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
>