linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] content: Add VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB to negotiate use of SWIOTLB bounce buffers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250403033230-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:34:56 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@....com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, virtio-comment@...ts.linux.dev,
	hch@...radead.org, Claire Chang <tientzu@...omium.org>,
	linux-devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Jörg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	graf@...zon.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] content: Add VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB to negotiate use
 of SWIOTLB bounce buffers

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 03:13:30PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 7:04 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> >
> > Device-tree bindings for `restricted-dma-pool` were defined in 2021, which
> > allow devices to be restricted to a given SWIOTLB pool instead of allowing
> > DMA to arbitrary system memory:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210624155526.2775863-1-tientzu@chromium.org/
> >
> > This facility was not specific to virtio-mmio, but does apply to it. No
> > attempt was made to ensure backward-compatibility for virtio-mmio devices.
> >
> > Define a VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB feature which allows the device and driver to
> > agree on the use of the SWIOTLB, if present. This enables the device to
> > refuse to operate further if the driver does not support the SWIOTLB
> > requirement expressed in the device-tree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  content.tex | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index c17ffa6..63d075f 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -773,6 +773,9 @@ \chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits}
> >  Currently these device-independent feature bits are defined:
> >  
> >  \begin{description}
> > +  \item[VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB (27)] This feature indicates that the device
> > +  transport provides a memory region which is to be used for bounce
> > +  buffering, rather than permitting direct memory access to system memory.
> Hello David
> 
> IMHO, if we need a bounce buffer, why not place it on the host memory?
> Because if the  bounce buffer resides in the device memory, it requires CPU traverse the pci bus,
> that can be 10 times slower than accessing host memory.
> This performance overhead can be worse when transmitting small packets,
> and stress the CPU cores, even lead to IO starvation when CPU over-commit.
> The device side memory is a host thing to the guest anyway.
> 
> Thanks
> Zhu Lingshan


Indeed I personally do not exactly get why implement a virtual system
without an IOMMU when virtio-iommu is available.

I have a feeling it's about lack of windows drivers for virtio-iommu
at this point.


> >    \item[VIRTIO_F_INDIRECT_DESC (28)] Negotiating this feature indicates
> >    that the driver can use descriptors with the VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT
> >    flag set, as described in \ref{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > @@ -807,6 +810,9 @@ \chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits}
> >    the driver. When clear, this overrides any platform-specific description of
> >    whether device access is limited or translated in any way, e.g.
> >    whether an IOMMU may be present.
> > +  If a the device transport provides a software IOTLB bounce buffer,
> > +  addresses within its range are not subject to the requirements of
> > +  VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM as they are considered to be ``on-device''.
> >    \item[VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED(34)] This feature indicates
> >    support for the packed virtqueue layout as described in
> >    \ref{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Packed Virtqueues}~\nameref{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Packed Virtqueues}.
> > @@ -885,6 +891,10 @@ \chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits}
> >  VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is not offered, then a driver MUST pass only physical
> >  addresses to the device.
> >  
> > +A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB if it is offered, and it MUST
> > +then pass only addresses within the Software IOTLB bounce buffer to the
> > +device.
> > +
> >  A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED if it is offered.
> >  
> >  A driver SHOULD accept VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM if it is offered.
> > @@ -921,6 +931,8 @@ \chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits}
> >  A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is not
> >  accepted.
> >  
> > +A device MAY fail to operate further if VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB is not accepted.
> > +
> >  If VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER has been negotiated, a device MUST use
> >  buffers in the same order in which they have been available.
> >