[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211021232223.GM2744544@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:22:23 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 10/20] iommu/iommufd: Add IOMMU_DEVICE_GET_INFO
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:58:02PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 02:26:00AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > I'll leave it to Jean to confirm. If only coherent DMA can be used in
> > > the guest on other platforms, suppose VFIO should not blindly set
> > > IOMMU_CACHE and in concept it should deny assigning a non-coherent
> > > device since no co-ordination with guest exists today.
> >
> > Jean, what's your opinion?
>
> Yes a sanity check to prevent assigning non-coherent devices would be
> good, though I'm not particularly worried about non-coherent devices. PCIe
> on Arm should be coherent (according to the Base System Architecture). So
> vfio-pci devices should be coherent, but vfio-platform and mdev are
> case-by-case (hopefully all coherent since it concerns newer platforms).
>
> More worrying, I thought we disabled No-Snoop for VFIO but I was wrong,
> it's left enabled. On Arm I don't think userspace can perform the right
> cache maintenance operations to maintain coherency with a device that
> issues No-Snoop writes. Userspace can issue clean+invalidate but not
> invalidate alone, so there is no equivalent to
> arch_sync_dma_for_cpu().
So what happens in a VM? Does a VM know that arch_sync_dma_for_cpu()
is not available?
And how does this work with the nested IOMMU translation? I thought I
read in the SMMU spec that the io page table entries could control
cachability including in nesting cases?
> I think the worse that can happen is the device owner shooting itself in
> the foot by using No-Snoop, but would it hurt to disable it?
No, the worst is the same as Intel - a driver running in the guest VM
assumes it can use arch_sync_dma_for_cpu() and acts accordingly,
resulting in a broken VM.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists