Hi Diana,
On 03/11/2016 14:45, Diana Madalina Craciun wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 10/12/2016 04:23 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> On x86 IRQ remapping is abstracted by the IOMMU. On ARM this is abstracted
>> by the msi controller.
>>
>> Since we currently have no way to detect whether the MSI controller is
>> upstream or downstream to the IOMMU we rely on the MSI doorbell information
>> registered by the interrupt controllers. In case at least one doorbell
>> does not implement proper isolation, we state the assignment is unsafe
>> with regard to interrupts. This is a coarse assessment but should allow to
>> wait for a better system description.
>>
>> At this point ARM sMMU still advertises IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP. This is
>> removed in next patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>> v13 -> v15:
>> - check vfio_msi_resv before checking whether msi doorbell is safe
>>
>> v9 -> v10:
>> - coarse safety assessment based on MSI doorbell info
>>
>> v3 -> v4:
>> - rename vfio_msi_parent_irq_remapping_capable into vfio_safe_irq_domain
>> and irq_remapping into safe_irq_domains
>>
>> v2 -> v3:
>> - protect vfio_msi_parent_irq_remapping_capable with
>> CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> index e0c97ef..c18ba9d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> @@ -442,6 +442,29 @@ static void vfio_unmap_unpin(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma *dma)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * vfio_msi_resv - Return whether any VFIO iommu domain requires
>> + * MSI mapping
>> + *
>> + * @iommu: vfio iommu handle
>> + *
>> + * Return: true of MSI mapping is needed, false otherwise
>> + */
>> +static bool vfio_msi_resv(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_domain_msi_resv msi_resv;
>> + struct vfio_domain *d;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(d, &iommu->domain_list, next) {
>> + ret = iommu_domain_get_attr(d->domain, DOMAIN_ATTR_MSI_RESV,
>> + &msi_resv);
>> + if (!ret)
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> * vfio_set_msi_aperture - Sets the msi aperture on all domains
>> * requesting MSI mapping
>> *
>> @@ -945,8 +968,13 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list);
>> list_add(&group->next, &domain->group_list);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * to advertise safe interrupts either the IOMMU or the MSI controllers
>> + * must support IRQ remapping (aka. interrupt translation)
>> + */
>> if (!allow_unsafe_interrupts &&
>> - !iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP)) {
>> + (!iommu_capable(bus, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP) &&
>> + !(vfio_msi_resv(iommu) && iommu_msi_doorbell_safe()))) {
>> pr_warn("%s: No interrupt remapping support. Use the module param \"allow_unsafe_interrupts\" to enable VFIO IOMMU support on this platform\n",
>> __func__);
>> ret = -EPERM;
>
> I understand from the other discussions that you will respin these
> series, but anyway I have tested this version with GICV3 + ITS and it
> stops here. As I have a GICv3 I am not supposed to enable allow unsafe
> interrupts. What I see is that vfio_msi_resv returns false just because
> the iommu->domain_list list is empty. The newly created domain is
> actually added to the domain_list at the end of this function, so it
> seems normal for the list to be empty at this point.
Thanks for reporting the issue. You are fully right. I must have missed
that test. I should just check the current iommu_domain attribute I think.
waiting for a fix, please probe the vfio_iommu_type1 module with
allow_unsafe_interrupts=1
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thanks,
>
> Diana
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
