> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 10:04 AM > To: Christian Benvenuti (benve) > Cc: chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx; aik@xxxxxxxxxxx; pmac@xxxxxxxxxxx; > dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx; joerg.roedel@xxxxxxx; agraf@xxxxxxx; Aaron Fabbri > (aafabbri); B08248@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; B07421@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; avi@xxxxxxxxxx; > konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx; > iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] vfio: VFIO Driver core framework > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:57 -0600, Christian Benvenuti (benve) wrote: > > Here are few minor comments on vfio_iommu.c ... > > Sorry, I've been poking sticks at trying to figure out a clean way to > solve the force vfio driver attach problem. Attach o detach? > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..029dae3 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu.c > <snip> > > > + > > > +#include "vfio_private.h" > > > > Doesn't the 'dma_' prefix belong to the generic DMA code? > > Sure, we could these more vfio-centric. Like vfio_dma_map_page? > > > > +struct dma_map_page { > > > + struct list_head list; > > > + dma_addr_t daddr; > > > + unsigned long vaddr; > > > + int npage; > > > + int rdwr; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * This code handles mapping and unmapping of user data buffers > > > + * into DMA'ble space using the IOMMU > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#define NPAGE_TO_SIZE(npage) ((size_t)(npage) << PAGE_SHIFT) > > > + > > > +struct vwork { > > > + struct mm_struct *mm; > > > + int npage; > > > + struct work_struct work; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* delayed decrement for locked_vm */ > > > +static void vfio_lock_acct_bg(struct work_struct *work) > > > +{ > > > + struct vwork *vwork = container_of(work, struct vwork, work); > > > + struct mm_struct *mm; > > > + > > > + mm = vwork->mm; > > > + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > > > + mm->locked_vm += vwork->npage; > > > + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > > > + mmput(mm); /* unref mm */ > > > + kfree(vwork); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void vfio_lock_acct(int npage) > > > +{ > > > + struct vwork *vwork; > > > + struct mm_struct *mm; > > > + > > > + if (!current->mm) { > > > + /* process exited */ > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + if (down_write_trylock(¤t->mm->mmap_sem)) { > > > + current->mm->locked_vm += npage; > > > + up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + /* > > > + * Couldn't get mmap_sem lock, so must setup to decrement > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Increment? > > Yep > > <snip> > > > +int vfio_remove_dma_overlap(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, dma_addr_t > > > start, > > > + size_t size, struct dma_map_page *mlp) > > > +{ > > > + struct dma_map_page *split; > > > + int npage_lo, npage_hi; > > > + > > > + /* Existing dma region is completely covered, unmap all */ > > > > This works. However, given how vfio_dma_map_dm implements the merging > > logic, I think it is impossible to have > > > > (start < mlp->daddr && > > start + size > mlp->daddr + NPAGE_TO_SIZE(mlp->npage)) > > It's quite possible. This allows userspace to create a sparse mapping, > then blow it all away with a single unmap from 0 to ~0. I would prefer the user to use exact ranges in the unmap operations because it would make it easier to detect bugs/leaks in the map/unmap logic used by the callers. My assumptions are that: - the user always keeps track of the mappings - the user either unmaps one specific mapping or 'all of them'. The 'all of them' case would also take care of those cases where the user does _not_ keep track of mappings and simply uses the "unmap from 0 to ~0" each time. Because of this you could still provide an exact map/unmap logic and allow such "unmap from 0 to ~0" by making the latter a special case. However, if we want to allow any arbitrary/inexact unmap request, then OK. > > > + if (start <= mlp->daddr && > > > + start + size >= mlp->daddr + NPAGE_TO_SIZE(mlp->npage)) { > > > + vfio_dma_unmap(iommu, mlp->daddr, mlp->npage, mlp->rdwr); > > > + list_del(&mlp->list); > > > + npage_lo = mlp->npage; > > > + kfree(mlp); > > > + return npage_lo; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* Overlap low address of existing range */ > > > > Same as above (ie, '<' is impossible) > > existing: |<--- A --->| |<--- B --->| > unmap: |<--- C --->| > > Maybe not good practice from userspace, but we shouldn't count on > userspace to be well behaved. > > > > + if (start <= mlp->daddr) { > > > + size_t overlap; > > > + > > > + overlap = start + size - mlp->daddr; > > > + npage_lo = overlap >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > + npage_hi = mlp->npage - npage_lo; > > > + > > > + vfio_dma_unmap(iommu, mlp->daddr, npage_lo, mlp->rdwr); > > > + mlp->daddr += overlap; > > > + mlp->vaddr += overlap; > > > + mlp->npage -= npage_lo; > > > + return npage_lo; > > > + } > > > > Same as above (ie, '>' is impossible). > > Same example as above. > > > > + /* Overlap high address of existing range */ > > > + if (start + size >= mlp->daddr + NPAGE_TO_SIZE(mlp->npage)) { > > > + size_t overlap; > > > + > > > + overlap = mlp->daddr + NPAGE_TO_SIZE(mlp->npage) - start; > > > + npage_hi = overlap >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > + npage_lo = mlp->npage - npage_hi; > > > + > > > + vfio_dma_unmap(iommu, start, npage_hi, mlp->rdwr); > > > + mlp->npage -= npage_hi; > > > + return npage_hi; > > > + } > <snip> > > > +int vfio_dma_map_dm(struct vfio_iommu *iommu, struct vfio_dma_map > > > *dmp) > > > +{ > > > + int npage; > > > + struct dma_map_page *mlp, *mmlp = NULL; > > > + dma_addr_t daddr = dmp->dmaaddr; > > > + unsigned long locked, lock_limit, vaddr = dmp->vaddr; > > > + size_t size = dmp->size; > > > + int ret = 0, rdwr = dmp->flags & VFIO_DMA_MAP_FLAG_WRITE; > > > + > > > + if (vaddr & (PAGE_SIZE-1)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (daddr & (PAGE_SIZE-1)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (size & (PAGE_SIZE-1)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + npage = size >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > + if (!npage) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + if (!iommu) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + mutex_lock(&iommu->dgate); > > > + > > > + if (vfio_find_dma(iommu, daddr, size)) { > > > + ret = -EBUSY; > > > + goto out_lock; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* account for locked pages */ > > > + locked = current->mm->locked_vm + npage; > > > + lock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > + if (locked > lock_limit && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) { > > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n", > > > + __func__, rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)); > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > + goto out_lock; > > > + } > > > + > > > + ret = vfio_dma_map(iommu, daddr, vaddr, npage, rdwr); > > > + if (ret) > > > + goto out_lock; > > > + > > > + /* Check if we abut a region below */ > > > > Is !daddr possible? > > Sure, an IOVA of 0x0. There's no region below if we start at zero. > > > > + if (daddr) { > > > + mlp = vfio_find_dma(iommu, daddr - 1, 1); > > > + if (mlp && mlp->rdwr == rdwr && > > > + mlp->vaddr + NPAGE_TO_SIZE(mlp->npage) == vaddr) { > > > + > > > + mlp->npage += npage; > > > + daddr = mlp->daddr; > > > + vaddr = mlp->vaddr; > > > + npage = mlp->npage; > > > + size = NPAGE_TO_SIZE(npage); > > > + > > > + mmlp = mlp; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > Is !(daddr + size) possible? > > Same, there's no region above if this region goes to the top of the > address space, ie. 0xffffffff_fffff000 + 0x1000 > > Hmm, wonder if I'm missing a check for wrapping. > > > > + if (daddr + size) { > > > + mlp = vfio_find_dma(iommu, daddr + size, 1); > > > + if (mlp && mlp->rdwr == rdwr && mlp->vaddr == vaddr + size) > > > { > > > + > > > + mlp->npage += npage; > > > + mlp->daddr = daddr; > > > + mlp->vaddr = vaddr; > > > + > > > + /* If merged above and below, remove previously > > > + * merged entry. New entry covers it. */ > > > + if (mmlp) { > > > + list_del(&mmlp->list); > > > + kfree(mmlp); > > > + } > > > + mmlp = mlp; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + if (!mmlp) { > > > + mlp = kzalloc(sizeof *mlp, GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!mlp) { > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > + vfio_dma_unmap(iommu, daddr, npage, rdwr); > > > + goto out_lock; > > > + } > > > + > > > + mlp->npage = npage; > > > + mlp->daddr = daddr; > > > + mlp->vaddr = vaddr; > > > + mlp->rdwr = rdwr; > > > + list_add(&mlp->list, &iommu->dm_list); > > > + } > > > + > > > +out_lock: > > > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->dgate); > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static int vfio_iommu_release(struct inode *inode, struct file > *filep) > > > +{ > > > + struct vfio_iommu *iommu = filep->private_data; > > > + > > > + vfio_release_iommu(iommu); > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static long vfio_iommu_unl_ioctl(struct file *filep, > > > + unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > > > +{ > > > + struct vfio_iommu *iommu = filep->private_data; > > > + int ret = -ENOSYS; > > > > Any reason for not using "switch" ? > > It got ugly in vfio_main, so I decided to be consistent w/ it in the > driver and use if/else here too. I don't like the aesthetics of extra > {}s to declare variables within a switch, nor do I like declaring all > the variables for each case for the whole function. Personal quirk. > > > > + if (cmd == VFIO_IOMMU_GET_FLAGS) { > > > + u64 flags = VFIO_IOMMU_FLAGS_MAP_ANY; > > > + > > > + ret = put_user(flags, (u64 __user *)arg); > > > + > > > + } else if (cmd == VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA) { > > > + struct vfio_dma_map dm; > > > + > > > + if (copy_from_user(&dm, (void __user *)arg, sizeof dm)) > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > > What does the "_dm" suffix stand for? > > Inherited from Tom, but I figure _dma_map_dm = action(dma map), > object(dm), which is a vfio_Dma_Map. OK. The reason why I asked is that '_dm' does not add anything to 'vfio_dma_map'. /Chris ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����o�^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
