Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] iommufd: Add IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2023/11/21 13:19, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:02:49PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 11/17/23 9:07 PM, Yi Liu wrote:
In nested translation, the stage-1 page table is user-managed but cached
by the IOMMU hardware, so an update on present page table entries in the
stage-1 page table should be followed with a cache invalidation.

Add an IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE ioctl to support such a cache invalidation.
It takes hwpt_id to specify the iommu_domain, and a multi-entry array to
support multiple invalidation requests in one ioctl.

Check cache_invalidate_user op in the iommufd_hw_pagetable_alloc_nested,
since all nested domains need that.

Co-developed-by: Nicolin Chen<nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen<nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yi Liu<yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
---
   drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c    | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
   drivers/iommu/iommufd/iommufd_private.h |  9 +++++++
   drivers/iommu/iommufd/main.c            |  3 +++
   include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h            | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
   4 files changed, 82 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c
index 2abbeafdbd22..367459d92f69 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/hw_pagetable.c
@@ -238,6 +238,11 @@ iommufd_hwpt_nested_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx,
               rc = -EINVAL;
               goto out_abort;
       }
+     /* Driver is buggy by missing cache_invalidate_user in domain_ops */
+     if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!hwpt->domain->ops->cache_invalidate_user)) {
+             rc = -EINVAL;
+             goto out_abort;
+     }
       return hwpt_nested;

The WARN message here may cause kernel regression when users bisect
issues. Till this patch, there are no drivers support the
cache_invalidation_user callback yet.

Ah, this is an unintended consequence from our uAPI bisect to
merge the nesting alloc first...

Would removing the WARN_ON_ONCE be okay? Although having this
WARN is actually the point here...

seems like we may need to remove it. how about your opinion, @Jason?

Thanks
Nic

--
Regards,
Yi Liu




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux