[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220719074941-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:56:09 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>
Cc: 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 10:02:56AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> If virtio devices are tagged for "restricted-dma-pool", then that
> pool should be used for virtio ring setup, via the DMA API.
>
> In particular, this fixes virtio_balloon for ARM PKVM, where the usual
> workaround of setting VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM in the virtio device
> doesn't work because the virtio_balloon driver clears the flag. This
> seems a more robust fix than fiddling the flag again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>
So the reason balloon disables ACCESS_PLATFORM is simply
because it passes physical addresses to device and
expects device to be able to poke at them.
I worry about modifying DMA semantics yet again - it has as much of a
chance to break some legacy configs as it has to fix some.
And I don't really know much about restricted-dma-pool but
I'd like to understand why does it make sense to set it for
the balloon since it pokes at all and any system memory.
> ---
> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index a5ec724c01d8..12be2607c648 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/swiotlb.h>
> #include <xen/xen.h>
>
> #ifdef DEBUG
> @@ -248,6 +249,13 @@ static bool vring_use_dma_api(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> if (!virtio_has_dma_quirk(vdev))
> return true;
>
> + /* If the device is configured to use a DMA restricted pool,
> + * we had better use it.
> + */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_RESTRICTED_POOL) &&
> + is_swiotlb_for_alloc(vdev->dev.parent))
> + return true;
> +
> /* Otherwise, we are left to guess. */
> /*
> * In theory, it's possible to have a buggy QEMU-supposed
> --
> 2.37.0.170.g444d1eabd0-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists