On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Currently, a lot of the virtio code assumes that bus (i.e. hypervisor) >> addresses are the same as physical address. This is false on Xen, so >> virtio is completely broken. I wouldn't be surprised if it also >> becomes a problem the first time that someone sticks a physical >> "virtio" device on a 32-bit bus on an ARM SOC with more than 4G RAM. >> >> Would you accept patches to convert virtio_ring and virtio_pci to use >> the DMA APIs? I think that the only real catch will be that >> virtio_ring's approach to freeing indirect blocks is currently >> incompatible with the DMA API -- it assumes that knowing the bus >> address is enough to call kfree, and I don't think that the DMA API >> provides a reverse mapping like that. > > If you use the dma_map/unmap_sg all of that ends up being stuck in the > sg structure (sg->dma_address ends with the DMA addr, sg_phys(sg) gives > you the physical address). Unfortunately, virtio_ring doesn't hang on to the sg structure until complation. I don't think it can, either -- if I read it right, the virtio_net driver uses one scatterlist per queue instead of one scatterlist per pending skb, so the sg entries could be overwritten by the time virtio_ring should unmap it. Fortunately, I think that dma_unmap_single can handle this case just fine. I have a WIP here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=virtio_ring_xen It works, but it's mostly missing unmap calls. If there's no iommu or swiotlb, then there's nothing to leak, so it's okay. If you do, then this driver will eventually explode. I'll send patches once I have it fixed up. --Andy _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
