[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527620902046A4339EAACD3F8C0C9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 01:02:29 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Luo, Yuzhang" <yuzhang.luo@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Add a fix for devices need extra dtlb flush
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 1:49 AM
>
> > +
> > +/* Impacted QAT device IDs ranging from 0x4940 to 0x4943 */
> > +#define BUGGY_QAT_DEVID_MASK 0x494c
> > +static bool dev_needs_extra_dtlb_flush(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +{
> > + if (pdev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if ((pdev->device & 0xfffc) != BUGGY_QAT_DEVID_MASK)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (risky_device(pdev))
> > + return false;
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure that that makes much sense to me - what privilege can
> the device gain from being told to invalidate things twice? Why would we
> want to implicitly *allow* a device to potentially keep using a stale
> translation if for some bizarre reason firmware has marked it as
> external, surely that's worse?
>
ATS is disabled for such device hence no dtlb at all.
bool pci_ats_supported(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
if (!dev->ats_cap)
return false;
return (dev->untrusted == 0);
}
So above check doesn't make things worse. It's kind of meaningless
but according to Baolu he wants that check in every quirk...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists