[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Allow a per-PCI passthrough device permissive attribute



On 01/27/2010 01:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:23:52AM -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> Currently there is a global tag to let the administrator
>> turn off system-wide ACS checking when doing PCI device
>> passthrough.  However, this is too coarse-grained of an
>> attribute, since it doesn't allow setups where certain
>> guests are trusted while other ones are untrusted.  Allow
>> more complicated setups by making the device checking
>> a per-device setting.
>>
>> The more detailed explanation of why this is necessary
>> delves deep into PCIe internals.  Ideally we'd like
>> to be able to probe devices and figure out whether it
>> is safe to assign them.  In practice, this isn't possible
>> because PCIe allows devices to have "hidden" bridges
>> that software can't discover.  If you were to have
>> two devices assigned to two different domains behind
>> one of these hidden bridges, they could do P2P traffic
>> and bypass all of the VT-d/IOMMU checks.
>>
>> The next thing we could try to do is to have a whitelist
>> of devices that we know to be safe.  For instance, instead
>> of a "hidden" bridge, PCI devices can multiplex functions
>> instead, which causes all traffic to head to an upstream
>> bridge before P2P can take place.  Additionally, some
>> "hidden" PCI bridges may have ACS on-board.  In both of
>> these cases it's safe to passthrough the device(s), since
>> they can't P2P without the IOMMU getting involved.
>>
>> However, even if we did have a whitelist, I think we still
>> need a permissive attribute.  For one thing, the whitelist
>> will always be out of date with respect to new hardware,
>> so we'd need to allow administrators to temporarily
>> override the whitelist restriction until a new version of
>> the whitelist came out.  Also, we want to support the case
>> where the administrator knows it is safe to assign possibly
>> unsafe devices to a domain he trusts.
> 
> A domain is only trusted until its guest OS gets exploited at which point
> this proposed change may let it escape into the host. If you don't have
> any IOMMU on your host, you can't use PCI device assignment with KVM at
> all, because it would not be safe in the event of guest exploit / mis-
> behavior. The same is true of device assignment in this non-ACS + hidden
> bridge case.

While this is true, I don't think this is the sort of policy we should be
enforcing in libvirt.  Witness the users who still use Xen PV PCI passthrough,
despite the fact that is unsafe.  We still support them.  If KVM had the
ability to do non-IOMMU passthrough, I would think we would want to allow
that usage through libvirt.  Should we be safe by default?  Absolutely.  But
should we give administrators enough rope to hang themselves?  Yes, it's the
Unix way.

> 
> Thus I don't see why we should introduce a special "permissive" flag 
> solely for the non-ACS edge case, while at the smae time not allowing 
> the same permissiveness for the far more common non-IOMMU case. NB, I'm 
> not suggesting we allow skipping of the checks for the non-IOMMU case 
> either.
> 
> Keeping a whitelist of devices up2date wrt new hardware launches is no
> more troublesome than the existing problem of updating the PCI-IDs databse
> or actually providing updated kernel releases with new drivers.
> 
> If we use the permissive attribute, then every admin with a device that
> is known to be safe has the pain of setting the permissive attribute,
> every time, on every machine with this hardware. If we have a whitelist,
> then 99% of the time everything will just work because it will already
> be known to the whitelist. If the whitelist were an external datafile
> the admin could even extend it in the rare occasion when a new device 
> were not known. This is a choice of make everyone solve over & over
> again themselves, or solve it once for everybody.
> 
> I don't really like the idea of a whitelist, but I like it more than just
> pushing the problem onto admins via per guest flags. For that matter I
> don't like the host level flag we have either and would rather we removed
> it. If only there's a 3rd way that were neither flags or whitelists ...

The problem that I tried (and failed) to explain in the commit message is
that even with a whitelist, it is not sufficient.  The problem is that
with multi-function PCI devices, software cannot tell whether it is possible
to do P2P traffic.  In the case that a manufacturer tells us "no, our device
doesn't allow P2P traffic", then great, we can add it to the whitelist.  But
if a manufacturer can't or won't tell us that, then we have to assume it can
do P2P traffic, and block it.  But these multi-function PCI devices are
*exactly* the devices we want to passthrough to guests (all multi-port NICs we
have tested are multi-function).  So even with the whitelist, you still have
to leave a way for the admin to override the check.

-- 
Chris Lalancette


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]