Date:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:11:14 +0200
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/23] iommu: introduce device fault report API

Hi Jean-Philippe,

On 09/06/2018 07:06 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 14:14, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>>
>> On 09/06/2018 02:42 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2018 10:25, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>>> +		mutex_lock(&fparam->lock);
>>>>> +		list_add_tail(&evt_pending->list, &fparam->faults);
>>>> same doubt as Yi Liu. You cannot rely on the userspace willingness to
>>>> void the queue and deallocate this memory.
>>
>> By the way I saw there is a kind of garbage collectors for faults which
>> wouldn't have received any responses. However I am not sure this removes
>> the concern of having the fault list on kernel side growing beyond
>> acceptable limits.
> 
> How about per-device quotas? (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/23/706 for
> reference) With PRI the IOMMU driver already sets per-device credits
> when initializing the device (pci_enable_pri), so if the device behaves
> properly it shouldn't send new page requests once the number of
> outstanding ones is maxed out.

But this needs to work for non PRI use case too?
> 
> The stall mode of SMMU doesn't have per-device limit, and depending on
> the implementation it might be easy for one guest using stall to prevent
> other guests from receiving faults. For this reason we'll have to
> enforce a per-device stall quota in the SMMU driver, and immediately
> terminate faults that exceed this quota. We could easily do the same for
> PRI, if we don't trust devices to follow the spec. The difficult part is
> finding the right number of credits...
> 
>>> Host device drivers that use this API to be notified on fault can't deal
>>> with arch-specific event formats (SMMU event, Vt-d fault event, etc), so
>>> the APIs should be arch-agnostic. Given that requirement, using a single
>>> iommu_fault_event structure for both PRI and event queues made sense,
>>> especially since the even queue can have stall events that look a lot
>>> like PRI page requests.
>> I understand the data structure needs to be generic. Now I guess PRI
>> events and other standard translator error events (that can happen
>> without PRI) may have different characteristics in event fields,
> 
> Right, an event contains more information than a PRI page request.
> Stage-2 fields (CLASS, S2, IPA, TTRnW) cannot be represented by
> iommu_fault_event at the moment.

Yes I am currently doing the mapping exercise between SMMUv3 events and
iommu_fault_event and I miss config errors for instance.
 For precise emulation it might be
> useful to at least add the S2 flag (as a new iommu_fault_reason?), so
> that when the guest maps stage-1 to an invalid GPA, QEMU could for
> example inject an external abort.

Actually we may even need to filter events and return to the guest only
the S1 related.
> 
>> queue
>> size, that may deserve to create different APIs and internal data
>> structs. Also this may help separating the concerns.
> 
> It might duplicate them. If the consumer of the event report is a host
> device driver, the SMMU needs to report a "generic" iommu_fault_event,
> and if the consumer is VFIO it would report a specialized one

I am unsure of my understanding of the UNRECOVERABLE error type. Is it
everything else than a PRI. For instance are all SMMUv3 event errors
supposed to be put under the IOMMU_FAULT_DMA_UNRECOV umbrella?

If I understand correctly there are different consumers for PRI and
unrecoverable data, so why not having 2 different APIs.
> 
>> My remark also
>> stems from the fact the SMMU uses 2 different queues, whose size can
>> also be different.
> 
> Hm, for PRI requests the kernel-userspace queue size should actually be
> the number of PRI credits for that device. Hadn't thought about it
> before, where do we pass that info to userspace?
Cannot help here at the moment, sorry.
 For fault events, the
> queue could be as big as the SMMU event queue, though using all that
> space might be wasteful.
The guest has its own programming of the SMMU_EVENTQ_BASE.LOG2SIZE. This
could be used to program the SW fifo

 Non-stalled events should be rare and reporting
> them isn't urgent. Stalled ones would need the number of stall credits I
> mentioned above, which realistically will be a lot less than the SMMU
> event queue size. Given that a device will use either PRI or stall but
> not both, I still think events and PRI could go through the same queue.
Did I get it right PRI is for PCIe and STALL for non PCIe? But all that
stuff also is related to Page Request use case, right?

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Thanks,
> Jean
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists