On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 01:20:45PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I don't think so - the issue is really that DMA API does not yet handle > the SEV case 100% correctly. I suspect passthrough devices would have > the same issue. The DMA API handles the SEV case perfectly. Its just that virtio_blk supports huge segments that virtio does not generally support, but that is not related to SEV in any way. > In fact whoever sets IOMMU_PLATFORM is completely unaffected by > Christoph's pet peeve. No, the above happens only when we set IOMMU_PLATFORM. > Christoph is saying that !IOMMU_PLATFORM devices should hide the > compatibility code in a special per-device DMA API implementation. > Which would be fine especially if we can manage not to introduce a bunch > of indirect calls all over the place and hurt performance. It's just > that the benefit is unlikely to be big (e.g. we can't also get rid of > the virtio specific memory barriers) so no one was motivated enough to > work on it. No. The problem is that we still haven't fully specified what IOMMU_PLATFORM and !IOMMU_PLATFORM actually mean. Your "ACCESS_PLATFORM/ORDER_PLATFORM" commit in the virtio-spec repo improves it a little bit, but it is still far from enough. As a start VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM and VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM absolutely MUST be set for hardware implementations. Otherwise said hardware has no chance of working on anything but the most x86-like systems. Second software implementations SHOULD set VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM, because otherwise we can't add proper handling for things like SEV or the IBM "secure hypervisor" thing. Last but not least a lot of wording outside the area describing these flags really needs some major updates in terms of DMA access. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
