[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXszoQ48pZ7FnQNV@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:56:01 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, ankita@...dia.com,
maz@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
will@...nel.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
yi.l.liu@...el.com, ardb@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
gshan@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, aniketa@...dia.com,
cjia@...dia.com, kwankhede@...dia.com, targupta@...dia.com,
vsethi@...dia.com, acurrid@...dia.com, apopple@...dia.com,
jhubbard@...dia.com, danw@...dia.com, mochs@...dia.com,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
james.morse@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kvm: arm64: set io memory s2 pte as normalnc for
vfio pci devices
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 04:48:15PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
[...]
> > AFAICT, the only reason PCI devices can get the blanket treatment of
> > Normal-NC at stage-2 is because userspace has a Device-* mapping and can't
> > speculatively load from the alias. This feels a bit hacky, and maybe we
> > should prioritize an interface for mapping a device into a VM w/o a
> > valid userspace mapping.
>
> FWIW - I have tried to summarize the reasoning behind PCIe devices
> Normal-NC default stage-2 safety in a document that I have just realized
> now it has become this series cover letter, I don't think the PCI blanket
> treatment is related *only* to the current user space mappings (ie
> BTW, AFAICS it is also *possible* at present to map a prefetchable BAR through
> sysfs with Normal-NC memory attributes in the host at the same time a PCI
> device is passed-through to a guest with VFIO - and therefore we have a
> dev-nGnRnE stage-1 mapping for it. Don't think anyone does that - what for -
> but it is possible and KVM would not know about it).
>
> Again, FWIW, we were told (source Arm ARM) mismatched aliases concerning
> device-XXX vs Normal-NC are not problematic as long as the transactions
> issued for the related mappings are independent (and none of the
> mappings is cacheable).
>
> I appreciate this is not enough to give everyone full confidence on
> this solution robustness - that's why I wrote that up so that we know
> what we are up against and write KVM interfaces accordingly.
Apologies, I didn't mean to question what's going on here from the
hardware POV. My concern was more from the kernel + user interfaces POV,
this all seems to work (specifically for PCI) by maintaining an
intentional mismatch between the VFIO stage-1 and KVM stage-2 mappings.
If we add more behind-the-scenes tricks to get other MMIO mappings
working in the future then this whole interaction will get even
hairier. At least if we follow the stage-1 attributes (where possible)
then we can document some sort of expected behavior in KVM. The VMM would
need know if the device has read side-effects, as the only way to get a
Normal-NC mapping in the guest would be to have one at stage-1.
Kinda stinks to make the VMM aware of the device, but IMO it is a
fundamental limitation of the way we back memslots right now.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists