[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd1fd204-3596-b16c-5617-7e691ceac83b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:01:36 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...nel.vger.org
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: Question about domain_init (v5.3-v5.7)
Hi Jerry,
On 2020/11/26 4:27, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>
> Is there a reason we check the requested guest address width against the
> iommu's mgaw, instead of the agaw that we already know for the iommu?
> I've run into a case with a new system where the mgaw reported is 57,
> but if they set PAE to 46 instead of 52 in the bios, then sagaw reports
> the highest supported agaw is 48 and the domain_init code fails here. In
Isn't this a platform bug? If it's too late to fix it in the BIOS, you
maybe have to add a platform specific quirk to set mgaw to the highest
supported agaw?
Best regards,
baolu
> other places like prepare_domain_attach_device, the dmar domain agaw
> gets adjusted down to the iommu agaw. The agaw of the iommu gets
> determined based off what is reported for sagaw. I'm wondering if it
> can't instead do:
>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> index 6ca5c92ef2e5..a8e41ec36d9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> @@ -1862,8 +1862,8 @@ static int domain_init(struct dmar_domain *domain, struct intel_iommu *iommu,
> domain_reserve_special_ranges(domain);
>
> /* calculate AGAW */
> - if (guest_width > cap_mgaw(iommu->cap))
> - guest_width = cap_mgaw(iommu->cap);
> + if (guest_width > agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw))
> + guest_width = agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw);
> domain->gaw = guest_width;
> adjust_width = guestwidth_to_adjustwidth(guest_width);
> agaw = width_to_agaw(adjust_width);
> --
> 2.27.0
>
>
> Thoughts? With the former code the ehci device for the ilo fails when
> trying to get a private domain.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists