[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtbXxl8STUtQkacb@google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:11:50 +0000
From: Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: Force DMA restricted devices through DMA API
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 08:51:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 03:46:08PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > However, if the general idea at least is acceptable, would the
> > implementation be acceptable if I add an explicit API for this to the
> > DMA subsystem, and hide the detail there?
>
> I don't think so. The right thing to key off is
> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM, which really should be set in any modern
> virtio device after all the problems we had with the lack of it.
Ok. Certainly the flag description in virtio spec fits the bill.
> > Or a completely different approach would be to revert the patch
> > e41b1355508d which clears VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM in the balloon
> > driver. MST: That's back in your court, as it's your patch!
>
> Which also means this needs to be addresses, but I don't think a
> simple revert is enough.
Well here are two possible approaches:
1. Revert e41b1355508d outright. I'm not even sure what it would mean
for reported pages to go through IOMMU. And VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
is no longer IOMMU-specific anyway.
2. Continue to clear the flag during virtio_balloon negotiation, but
remember that it was offered, and test for that in vring_use_dma_api()
as well as, or instead of, virtio_has_dma_quirk().
Do either of those appeal?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists