* [virtio-dev] virtio-gpu dedicated heap
@ 2022-03-04 4:05 Gurchetan Singh
[not found] ` <CAAfnVBmCUHKRUVA=UouoSUH-eTyTTpNReU6i8TSD94iyYWyQzg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <eecdc1a2-ea5b-9d4f-9d58-ba87ffa5044d@arm.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gurchetan Singh @ 2022-03-04 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: iommu-request, virtio-dev, peterz, m.szyprowski, hch,
Michael S. Tsirkin, robin.murphy, will, Claire Chang, Tomasz Figa
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2219 bytes --]
Hi everyone,
With the current virtio setup, all of guest memory is shared with host
devices. There has been interest in changing this, to improve isolation of
guest memory and increase confidentiality.
The recently introduced restricted DMA mechanism makes excellent progress
in this area:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/cover/20210624155526.2775863-1-tientzu@chromium.org/
Devices without an IOMMU (traditional virtio devices for example) would
allocate from a specially designated region. Swiotlb bouncing is done for
all DMA transfers. This is controlled by the VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
feature bit.
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/platform/crosvm/+/3064198
This mechanism works great for the devices it was designed for, such as
virtio-net. However, when trying to adapt to it for other devices, there
are some limitations.
It would be great to have a dedicated heap for virtio-gpu rather than
allocating from guest memory.
We would like to use dma_alloc_noncontiguous on the restricted dma pool,
ideally with page-level granularity somehow. Continuous buffers are
definitely going out of fashion.
There are two considerations when using it with the restricted DMA approach:
1) No bouncing (aka memcpy)
Expensive with graphics buffers, since guest user space would designate
shareable graphics buffers with the host. We plan to use
DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC when doing any DMA transactions with GPU buffers.
Bounce buffering will be utilized with virtio-cmds, like the other virtio
devices that use the restricted DMA mechanism.
2) IO_TLB_SEGSIZE is too small for graphics buffers
This issue was hit before here too:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4154086.html
The suggestion was to use shared-dma-pool rather than restricted DMA. But
we're not sure a single device can have restricted DMA (for
VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) and shared-dma-pool (for larger buffers) at the
same time. Does anyone know?
If not, it sounds like "splitting the allocation into
dma_max_mapping_size() chunks" for restricted-dma is also possible. What
is the preferred method?
More generally, we would love more feedback on the proposed design or
consider alternatives!
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3633 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [virtio-dev] Re: virtio-gpu dedicated heap
[not found] ` <CAAfnVBmCUHKRUVA=UouoSUH-eTyTTpNReU6i8TSD94iyYWyQzg@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2022-03-04 4:56 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2022-03-04 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gurchetan Singh
Cc: virtio-dev, peterz, m.szyprowski, hch, robin.murphy, will,
Claire Chang, Tomasz Figa, iommu
$ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f ./drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> (maintainer:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER)
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> (maintainer:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER)
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> (maintainer:DRM DRIVERS)
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org (open list:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER)
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org (open list:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER)
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
You might want to CC these people.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:07:03PM -0800, Gurchetan Singh wrote:
> +iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org not iommu-request
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:05 PM Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> With the current virtio setup, all of guest memory is shared with host
> devices. There has been interest in changing this, to improve isolation of
> guest memory and increase confidentiality.
>
> The recently introduced restricted DMA mechanism makes excellent progress
> in this area:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/cover/
> 20210624155526.2775863-1-tientzu@chromium.org/
>
> Devices without an IOMMU (traditional virtio devices for example) would
> allocate from a specially designated region. Swiotlb bouncing is done for
> all DMA transfers. This is controlled by the VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> feature bit.
>
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/platform/crosvm/+/
> 3064198
>
> This mechanism works great for the devices it was designed for, such as
> virtio-net. However, when trying to adapt to it for other devices, there
> are some limitations.
>
> It would be great to have a dedicated heap for virtio-gpu rather than
> allocating from guest memory.
>
> We would like to use dma_alloc_noncontiguous on the restricted dma pool,
> ideally with page-level granularity somehow. Continuous buffers are
> definitely going out of fashion.
>
> There are two considerations when using it with the restricted DMA
> approach:
>
> 1) No bouncing (aka memcpy)
>
> Expensive with graphics buffers, since guest user space would designate
> shareable graphics buffers with the host. We plan to use
> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC when doing any DMA transactions with GPU buffers.
>
> Bounce buffering will be utilized with virtio-cmds, like the other virtio
> devices that use the restricted DMA mechanism.
>
> 2) IO_TLB_SEGSIZE is too small for graphics buffers
>
> This issue was hit before here too:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4154086.html
>
> The suggestion was to use shared-dma-pool rather than restricted DMA. But
> we're not sure a single device can have restricted DMA (for
> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) and shared-dma-pool (for larger buffers) at the
> same time. Does anyone know?
>
> If not, it sounds like "splitting the allocation into dma_max_mapping_size
> () chunks" for restricted-dma is also possible. What is the preferred
> method?
>
> More generally, we would love more feedback on the proposed design or
> consider alternatives!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [virtio-dev] Re: virtio-gpu dedicated heap
[not found] ` <eecdc1a2-ea5b-9d4f-9d58-ba87ffa5044d@arm.com>
@ 2022-03-04 18:36 ` Gurchetan Singh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Gurchetan Singh @ 2022-03-04 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Robin Murphy
Cc: virtio-dev, peterz, m.szyprowski, hch, Michael S. Tsirkin, will,
Claire Chang, Tomasz Figa, iommu
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4214 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 4:53 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-04 04:05, Gurchetan Singh wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > With the current virtio setup, all of guest memory is shared with host
> > devices. There has been interest in changing this, to improve isolation
> of
> > guest memory and increase confidentiality.
> >
> > The recently introduced restricted DMA mechanism makes excellent progress
> > in this area:
> >
> >
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/cover/20210624155526.2775863-1-tientzu@chromium.org/
> >
> >
> > Devices without an IOMMU (traditional virtio devices for example) would
> > allocate from a specially designated region. Swiotlb bouncing is done
> for
> > all DMA transfers. This is controlled by the VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> > feature bit.
> >
> >
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/platform/crosvm/+/3064198
> >
> > This mechanism works great for the devices it was designed for, such as
> > virtio-net. However, when trying to adapt to it for other devices, there
> > are some limitations.
> >
> > It would be great to have a dedicated heap for virtio-gpu rather than
> > allocating from guest memory.
> >
> > We would like to use dma_alloc_noncontiguous on the restricted dma pool,
> > ideally with page-level granularity somehow. Continuous buffers are
> > definitely going out of fashion.
> >
> > There are two considerations when using it with the restricted DMA
> approach:
> >
> > 1) No bouncing (aka memcpy)
> >
> > Expensive with graphics buffers, since guest user space would designate
> > shareable graphics buffers with the host. We plan to use
> > DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC when doing any DMA transactions with GPU buffers.
> >
> > Bounce buffering will be utilized with virtio-cmds, like the other virtio
> > devices that use the restricted DMA mechanism.
> >
> > 2) IO_TLB_SEGSIZE is too small for graphics buffers
> >
> > This issue was hit before here too:
> >
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4154086.html
> >
> > The suggestion was to use shared-dma-pool rather than restricted DMA.
> But
> > we're not sure a single device can have restricted DMA (for
> > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM) and shared-dma-pool (for larger buffers) at the
> > same time. Does anyone know?
>
> Yes, it is absolutely intended that a device can have both a
> "restricted-dma-pool" for bouncing data from e.g. user pages, and a
> "shared-dma-pool" from which to allocate dedicated buffers. The
> "restricted-dma-pool" binding even explicitly calls this case out.
>
> As long as the "shared-dma-pool" is suitably sized, it shouldn't make
> much difference to Linux whether it's a simple system memory carveout or
> a special hardware/hypervisor-isolated region. The only real
> considerations for the latter case are firstly that you probably want to
> make sure it is used as a coherent pool rather than a CMA pool (i.e.
> omit the "reusable" property), since if the guest exposes private data
> in shared pages that aren't currently in use for DMA then it rather
> defeats the point, and secondly that if allocating from the pool fails,
> Linux will currently fall back to allocating from regular protected
> memory, which is liable to end badly. There's certainly potential to
> improve on the latter point, but the short-term easy dodge is just to
> make the pool big enough that normal operation won't exhaust it.
>
Thanks for the feedback! Will experiment with the mixed
"shared-dma-pool" + "restricted-dma" approach for virtio-gpu.
>
> > If not, it sounds like "splitting the allocation into
> > dma_max_mapping_size() chunks" for restricted-dma is also possible. What
> > is the preferred method?
> >
> > More generally, we would love more feedback on the proposed design or
> > consider alternatives!
>
> Another alternative, if the protection mechanism allows, is to hook into
> the set_memory_(de,en)crypted() APIs to dynamically share buffers as
> they are allocated instead of using a static pool. This should mostly
> work as-is - I think the only impediment is pgprot_decrypted, which
> would need some kind of hook in vmap() to detect it and make the
> corresponding hypervisor call.
>
> Robin.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5635 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-04 18:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-03-04 4:05 [virtio-dev] virtio-gpu dedicated heap Gurchetan Singh
[not found] ` <CAAfnVBmCUHKRUVA=UouoSUH-eTyTTpNReU6i8TSD94iyYWyQzg@mail.gmail.com>
2022-03-04 4:56 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
[not found] ` <eecdc1a2-ea5b-9d4f-9d58-ba87ffa5044d@arm.com>
2022-03-04 18:36 ` Gurchetan Singh
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).