Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain

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

 



On 2023/12/22 14:57, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM

+
+static void intel_nested_flush_cache(struct dmar_domain *domain, u64
addr,
+				     unsigned long npages, u32 *error)
+{
+	struct iommu_domain_info *info;
+	unsigned long i;
+	unsigned mask;
+	u32 fault = 0;
+
+	if (npages == U64_MAX)
+		mask = 64 - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT;
+	else
+		mask = ilog2(__roundup_pow_of_two(npages));
+
+	xa_for_each(&domain->iommu_array, i, info) {
+		nested_flush_pasid_iotlb(info->iommu, domain, addr,
npages, 0);

so IOMMU_VTD_INV_FLAGS_LEAF is defined but ignored?

yeah... it is. It is named as ih in the driver code. But it appears only
the below code is set ih. When calling iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(), the 5th
parameter (ih) may be true.

static int intel_iommu_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
				       unsigned long val, void *v)
{
	struct memory_notify *mhp = v;
	unsigned long start_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn);
	unsigned long last_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn +
			mhp->nr_pages - 1);

	switch (val) {
	case MEM_GOING_ONLINE:
		if (iommu_domain_identity_map(si_domain,
					      start_vpfn, last_vpfn)) {
			pr_warn("Failed to build identity map for [%lx-%lx]\n",
				start_vpfn, last_vpfn);
			return NOTIFY_BAD;
		}
		break;

	case MEM_OFFLINE:
	case MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE:
		{
			struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
			struct intel_iommu *iommu;
			LIST_HEAD(freelist);

			domain_unmap(si_domain, start_vpfn, last_vpfn, &freelist);

			rcu_read_lock();
			for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd)
				iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, si_domain,
					start_vpfn, mhp->nr_pages,
					list_empty(&freelist), 0);
			rcu_read_unlock();
			put_pages_list(&freelist);
		}
		break;
	}

	return NOTIFY_OK;
}


+
+		if (domain->has_iotlb_device)
+			continue;
+
+		nested_flush_dev_iotlb(domain, addr, mask, &fault);
+		if (fault & (DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE))
+			break;

here you may add a note that we don't plan to forward invalidation
queue error (i.e. IQE) to the caller as it's caused only by driver
internal bug.

yes.


+
+		if (!IS_ALIGNED(inv_entry.addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE) ||
+		    ((inv_entry.npages == U64_MAX) && inv_entry.addr)) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			break;
+		}
+

why is [non-zero-addr, U64_MAX] an error? Is it explicitly stated to
be not supported by underlying helpers?

no such limitation by underlying helpers. But in such case, the addr+npages*PAGE_SIZE would exceed U64_MAX, this seems a bit
strange. But I'm fine to relax the check since the underlying helper
only checks npages when determining paid-selective or not.

--
Regards,
Yi Liu




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux