[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210519094307.3275-1-jiangkunkun@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 17:43:05 +0800
From: Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Eric Auger" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"moderated list:ARM SMMU DRIVERS"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>, Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com>,
"Zenghui Yu" <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add some parameter check in __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range()
Hi all,
This set of patches solves some errors when I tested the SMMU nested mode.
Test scenario description:
guest kernel: 4KB translation granule
host kernel: 16KB translation granule
errors:
1. encountered an endless loop in __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range because
num_pages is 0
2. encountered CERROR_ILL because the fields of TLB invalidation
command are as follow: TG = 2, NUM = 0, SCALE = 0, TTL = 0. The
combination is exactly the kind of reserved combination pointed
out in the SMMUv3 spec(page 143-144, version D.a)
In my opinion, it is more appropriate to add parameter check in
__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range(), although these problems only appeared
when I tested the SMMU nested mode. What do you think?
This series include patches as below:
Patch 1:
- align the invalid range with leaf page size upwards when smmu
supports RIL
Patch 2:
- add a check to standardize granule size when smmu supports RIL
Kunkun Jiang (2):
iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Align invalid range with leaf page size upwards
when support RIL
iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Standardize granule size when support RIL
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
--
2.23.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists