| Message ID | 1394640969-25583-10-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Commit | e19ec6c49b72574e4a12b8f30f78306e69328cb4 |
| Headers | show |
On 03/12/2014 12:16 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > MSI is not yet support on ARM and will break the compilation when XSM_ENABLE=y. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> > Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov> I am assuming that IRQs on ARM are generally allocated in a static manner for a given board, so that a security policy based on their numeric values would be effective. If IRQs above nr_static_irqs are dynamic as on x86, it may be necessary to resolve them in some way. Since this resolution would naturally be split into a separate patch, in either case this patch is Acked-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov> > --- > xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c > index 65343f3..56c7645 100644 > --- a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c > +++ b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c > @@ -19,7 +19,9 @@ > #include <xen/errno.h> > #include <xen/guest_access.h> > #include <xen/xenoprof.h> > +#ifdef HAS_PCI > #include <asm/msi.h> > +#endif > #include <public/xen.h> > #include <public/physdev.h> > #include <public/platform.h> > @@ -100,7 +102,6 @@ static int domain_has_xen(struct domain *d, u32 perms) > > static int get_irq_sid(int irq, u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) > { > - struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); > if ( irq >= nr_irqs || irq < 0 ) > return -EINVAL; > if ( irq < nr_static_irqs ) { > @@ -110,15 +111,21 @@ static int get_irq_sid(int irq, u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) > } > return security_irq_sid(irq, sid); > } > - if ( desc->msi_desc && desc->msi_desc->dev ) { > - struct pci_dev *dev = desc->msi_desc->dev; > - u32 sbdf = (dev->seg << 16) | (dev->bus << 8) | dev->devfn; > - if (ad) { > - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); > - ad->device = sbdf; > +#ifdef HAS_PCI > + { > + struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); > + if ( desc->msi_desc && desc->msi_desc->dev ) { > + struct pci_dev *dev = desc->msi_desc->dev; > + u32 sbdf = (dev->seg << 16) | (dev->bus << 8) | dev->devfn; > + if (ad) { > + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); > + ad->device = sbdf; > + } > + return security_device_sid(sbdf, sid); > } > - return security_device_sid(sbdf, sid); > } > +#endif > + > if (ad) { > AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, IRQ); > ad->irq = irq; > @@ -825,21 +832,34 @@ static int flask_map_domain_pirq (struct domain *d) > return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__ADD); > } > > +static int flask_map_domain_msi (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data, > + u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) > +{ > +#ifdef HAS_PCI > + struct msi_info *msi = data; > + > + u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; > + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); > + ad->device = machine_bdf; > + > + return security_device_sid(machine_bdf, sid); > +#else > + return -EINVAL; > +#endif > +} > + > static int flask_map_domain_irq (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data) > { > u32 sid, dsid; > int rc = -EPERM; > - struct msi_info *msi = data; > struct avc_audit_data ad; > > - if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && msi ) { > - u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; > - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, DEV); > - ad.device = machine_bdf; > - rc = security_device_sid(machine_bdf, &sid); > + if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && data ) { > + rc = flask_map_domain_msi(d, irq, data, &sid, &ad); > } else { > rc = get_irq_sid(irq, &sid, &ad); > } > + > if ( rc ) > return rc; > > @@ -858,18 +878,30 @@ static int flask_unmap_domain_pirq (struct domain *d) > return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__REMOVE); > } > > +static int flask_unmap_domain_msi (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data, > + u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) > +{ > +#ifdef HAS_PCI > + struct msi_info *msi = data; > + u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; > + > + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); > + ad->device = machine_bdf; > + > + return security_device_sid(machine_bdf, sid); > +#else > + return -EINVAL; > +#endif > +} > + > static int flask_unmap_domain_irq (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data) > { > u32 sid; > int rc = -EPERM; > - struct msi_info *msi = data; > struct avc_audit_data ad; > > - if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && msi ) { > - u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; > - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, DEV); > - ad.device = machine_bdf; > - rc = security_device_sid(machine_bdf, &sid); > + if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && data ) { > + rc = flask_unmap_domain_msi(d, irq, data, &sid, &ad); > } else { > rc = get_irq_sid(irq, &sid, &ad); > } >
Hello Daniel, Thanks for your review. On 03/13/2014 02:34 PM, Daniel De Graaf wrote: > On 03/12/2014 12:16 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >> MSI is not yet support on ARM and will break the compilation when >> XSM_ENABLE=y. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> >> Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov> > > I am assuming that IRQs on ARM are generally allocated in a static > manner for > a given board, so that a security policy based on their numeric values > would > be effective. If IRQs above nr_static_irqs are dynamic as on x86, it may be > necessary to resolve them in some way. Since this resolution would > naturally > be split into a separate patch, in either case this patch is Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not higher than this number. Regards,
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > Thanks for your review. > > On 03/13/2014 02:34 PM, Daniel De Graaf wrote: > > On 03/12/2014 12:16 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > >> MSI is not yet support on ARM and will break the compilation when > >> XSM_ENABLE=y. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> > >> Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov> > > > > I am assuming that IRQs on ARM are generally allocated in a static > > manner for > > a given board, so that a security policy based on their numeric values > > would > > be effective. If IRQs above nr_static_irqs are dynamic as on x86, it may be > > necessary to resolve them in some way. Since this resolution would > > naturally > > be split into a separate patch, in either case this patch is > > Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not > higher than this number. This will change before long though. Would HAVE_MSI_IRQS be a better name for this particular arch-configurable? After all PCI without MSI is plausible isn't it? (well, maybe not in the modern world) Ian
Hi Ian, On 03/14/2014 05:25 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> >> Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not >> higher than this number. > > This will change before long though. Would HAVE_MSI_IRQS be a better > name for this particular arch-configurable? After all PCI without MSI is > plausible isn't it? (well, maybe not in the modern world) Most of PCI passthrough code is relying that MSI is also implemented. Futhermore, I think the plan for ARM is to support both PCI and MSI. That's why I chose HAS_PCI. Regards,
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 18:15 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 03/14/2014 05:25 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >> > >> Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not > >> higher than this number. > > > > This will change before long though. Would HAVE_MSI_IRQS be a better > > name for this particular arch-configurable? After all PCI without MSI is > > plausible isn't it? (well, maybe not in the modern world) > > Most of PCI passthrough code is relying that MSI is also implemented. > Futhermore, I think the plan for ARM is to support both PCI and MSI. Right, but we might get PCI support first and separately I think? > That's why I chose HAS_PCI. I suppose we can revisit it easily enough if it causes problems. Ian.
Hi Ian, On 03/17/2014 10:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 18:15 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> On 03/14/2014 05:25 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:40 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> >>>> Right, nr_static_irqs is set to 1024 on ARM. For now every IRQs, are not >>>> higher than this number. >>> >>> This will change before long though. Would HAVE_MSI_IRQS be a better >>> name for this particular arch-configurable? After all PCI without MSI is >>> plausible isn't it? (well, maybe not in the modern world) >> >> Most of PCI passthrough code is relying that MSI is also implemented. >> Futhermore, I think the plan for ARM is to support both PCI and MSI. > > Right, but we might get PCI support first and separately I think? Good question, I though it's better to come with PCI and MSI support at the time. >> That's why I chose HAS_PCI. > > I suppose we can revisit it easily enough if it causes problems. If we implement first PCI, we might need to modify a couple of other place in Xen. I think we can delay HAS_MSI_IRQS and see if we really need it. Regards,
diff --git a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c index 65343f3..56c7645 100644 --- a/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c +++ b/xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c @@ -19,7 +19,9 @@ #include <xen/errno.h> #include <xen/guest_access.h> #include <xen/xenoprof.h> +#ifdef HAS_PCI #include <asm/msi.h> +#endif #include <public/xen.h> #include <public/physdev.h> #include <public/platform.h> @@ -100,7 +102,6 @@ static int domain_has_xen(struct domain *d, u32 perms) static int get_irq_sid(int irq, u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) { - struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); if ( irq >= nr_irqs || irq < 0 ) return -EINVAL; if ( irq < nr_static_irqs ) { @@ -110,15 +111,21 @@ static int get_irq_sid(int irq, u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) } return security_irq_sid(irq, sid); } - if ( desc->msi_desc && desc->msi_desc->dev ) { - struct pci_dev *dev = desc->msi_desc->dev; - u32 sbdf = (dev->seg << 16) | (dev->bus << 8) | dev->devfn; - if (ad) { - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); - ad->device = sbdf; +#ifdef HAS_PCI + { + struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); + if ( desc->msi_desc && desc->msi_desc->dev ) { + struct pci_dev *dev = desc->msi_desc->dev; + u32 sbdf = (dev->seg << 16) | (dev->bus << 8) | dev->devfn; + if (ad) { + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); + ad->device = sbdf; + } + return security_device_sid(sbdf, sid); } - return security_device_sid(sbdf, sid); } +#endif + if (ad) { AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, IRQ); ad->irq = irq; @@ -825,21 +832,34 @@ static int flask_map_domain_pirq (struct domain *d) return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__ADD); } +static int flask_map_domain_msi (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data, + u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) +{ +#ifdef HAS_PCI + struct msi_info *msi = data; + + u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); + ad->device = machine_bdf; + + return security_device_sid(machine_bdf, sid); +#else + return -EINVAL; +#endif +} + static int flask_map_domain_irq (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data) { u32 sid, dsid; int rc = -EPERM; - struct msi_info *msi = data; struct avc_audit_data ad; - if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && msi ) { - u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, DEV); - ad.device = machine_bdf; - rc = security_device_sid(machine_bdf, &sid); + if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && data ) { + rc = flask_map_domain_msi(d, irq, data, &sid, &ad); } else { rc = get_irq_sid(irq, &sid, &ad); } + if ( rc ) return rc; @@ -858,18 +878,30 @@ static int flask_unmap_domain_pirq (struct domain *d) return current_has_perm(d, SECCLASS_RESOURCE, RESOURCE__REMOVE); } +static int flask_unmap_domain_msi (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data, + u32 *sid, struct avc_audit_data *ad) +{ +#ifdef HAS_PCI + struct msi_info *msi = data; + u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; + + AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(ad, DEV); + ad->device = machine_bdf; + + return security_device_sid(machine_bdf, sid); +#else + return -EINVAL; +#endif +} + static int flask_unmap_domain_irq (struct domain *d, int irq, void *data) { u32 sid; int rc = -EPERM; - struct msi_info *msi = data; struct avc_audit_data ad; - if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && msi ) { - u32 machine_bdf = (msi->seg << 16) | (msi->bus << 8) | msi->devfn; - AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, DEV); - ad.device = machine_bdf; - rc = security_device_sid(machine_bdf, &sid); + if ( irq >= nr_static_irqs && data ) { + rc = flask_unmap_domain_msi(d, irq, data, &sid, &ad); } else { rc = get_irq_sid(irq, &sid, &ad); }
MSI is not yet support on ARM and will break the compilation when XSM_ENABLE=y. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> Cc: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov> --- xen/xsm/flask/hooks.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)