Message-ID: <fb9cd4ef-d91e-e526-fc6f-6cee43e70bb7@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 18:53:49 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>, eric.auger.pro@...il.com,
        joro@...tes.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        hanjun.guo@...aro.org, sudeep.holla@....com
Cc:     alex.williamson@...hat.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] iommu: Introduce IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE
 reserved memory regions

On 16/05/2019 14:23, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> On 5/16/19 2:46 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 16/05/2019 11:08, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Introduce a new type for reserved region. This corresponds
>>> to directly mapped regions which are known to be relaxable
>>> in some specific conditions, such as device assignment use
>>> case. Well known examples are those used by USB controllers
>>> providing PS/2 keyboard emulation for pre-boot BIOS and
>>> early BOOT or RMRRs associated to IGD working in legacy mode.
>>>
>>> Since commit c875d2c1b808 ("iommu/vt-d: Exclude devices using RMRRs
>>> from IOMMU API domains") and commit 18436afdc11a ("iommu/vt-d: Allow
>>> RMRR on graphics devices too"), those regions are currently
>>> considered "safe" with respect to device assignment use case
>>> which requires a non direct mapping at IOMMU physical level
>>> (RAM GPA -> HPA mapping).
>>>
>>> Those RMRRs currently exist and sometimes the device is
>>> attempting to access it but this has not been considered
>>> an issue until now.
>>>
>>> However at the moment, iommu_get_group_resv_regions() is
>>> not able to make any difference between directly mapped
>>> regions: those which must be absolutely enforced and those
>>> like above ones which are known as relaxable.
>>>
>>> This is a blocker for reporting severe conflicts between
>>> non relaxable RMRRs (like MSI doorbells) and guest GPA space.
>>>
>>> With this new reserved region type we will be able to use
>>> iommu_get_group_resv_regions() to enumerate the IOVA space
>>> that is usable through the IOMMU API without introducing
>>> regressions with respect to existing device assignment
>>> use cases (USB and IGD).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Note: At the moment the sysfs ABI is not changed. However I wonder
>>> whether it wouldn't be preferable to report the direct region as
>>> "direct_relaxed" there. At the moment, in case the same direct
>>> region is used by 2 devices, one USB/GFX and another not belonging
>>> to the previous categories, the direct region will be output twice
>>> with "direct" type.
>>
>> Hmm, that sounds a bit off - if we have overlapping regions within the
>> same domain, then we need to do some additional pre-processing to adjust
>> them anyway, since any part of a relaxable region which overlaps a
>> non-relaxable region cannot actually be relaxed, and so really should
>> never be described as such.
> In iommu_insert_resv_region(), we are overlapping regions of the same
> type. So iommu_get_group_resv_regions() should return both the relaxable
> region and non relaxable one. I should test this again using a hacked
> kernel though.

We should still consider relaxable regions as being able to merge back 
in to regular direct regions to a degree - If a relaxable region falls 
entirely within a direct one then there's no point exposing it because 
the direct region *has* to take precedence and be enforced. If there is 
an incomplete overlap then we could possibly just trust consumers to see 
it and give the direct region precedence themselves, but since the 
relaxable region is our own in-kernel invention rather than firmware 
gospel I think it would be safer to truncate it to just its 
non-overlapping part.

Robin.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists