On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/7/20 1:32 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:24:29AM +0000, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:53 AM
> >>> To: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >>> virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; eric.auger.pro@xxxxxxxxx; eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5] iommu/virtio: Use page size bitmap supported by
> >>> endpoint
> >>>
> >>> External Email
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:00:04PM +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> >>>> Different endpoint can support different page size, probe endpoint if
> >>>> it supports specific page size otherwise use global page sizes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v4->v5:
> >>>> - Rebase to Linux v5.7-rc4
> >>>>
> >>>> v3->v4:
> >>>> - Fix whitespace error
> >>>>
> >>>> v2->v3:
> >>>> - Fixed error return for incompatible endpoint
> >>>> - __u64 changed to __le64 in header file
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>> include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h | 7 +++++
> >>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
> >>>> b/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c index d5cac4f46ca5..9513d2ab819e 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/virtio-iommu.c
> >>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct viommu_endpoint {
> >>>> struct viommu_dev *viommu;
> >>>> struct viommu_domain *vdomain;
> >>>> struct list_head resv_regions;
> >>>> + u64 pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> struct viommu_request {
> >>>> @@ -415,6 +416,19 @@ static int viommu_replay_mappings(struct
> >>> viommu_domain *vdomain)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int viommu_set_pgsize_bitmap(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
> >>>> + struct virtio_iommu_probe_pgsize_mask *mask,
> >>>> + size_t len)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + u64 pgsize_bitmap = le64_to_cpu(mask->pgsize_bitmap);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (len < sizeof(*mask))
> >>>
> >>> This is too late to validate length, you have dereferenced it already.
> >>> do it before the read pls.
> >>
> >> Yes, Will change here and other places as well
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>> OK but note that guest will then just proceed to ignore the property. Is that really
> >>> OK? Wouldn't host want to know?
> >>
> >>
> >> Guest need to be in sync with device, so yes seems like guest need to tell device which page-size-mask it is using.
> >>
> >> Corresponding spec change patch (https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg06214.html)
> >>
> >> Would like Jean/Eric to comment here as well.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> + vdev->pgsize_bitmap = pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>
> >>> what if bitmap is 0? Is that a valid size? I see a bunch of BUG_ON with that value ...
> >>
> >> As per spec proposed device is supposed to set at-least one bit.
> >> Will add a bug_on her.
> >
> > Or better fail probe ...
> Yes I agree I would rather fail the probe.
> >
> >> Should we add bug_on or switch to global config page-size mask if this is zero (notify device which page-size-mask it is using).
> >
> > It's a spec violation, I wouldn't try to use the device.
> >
> >>>
> >>> I also see a bunch of code like e.g. this:
> >>>
> >>> pg_size = 1UL << __ffs(pgsize_bitmap);
> >>>
> >>> which probably won't DTRT on a 32 bit guest if the bitmap has bits set in the high
> >>> word.
> >>>
> >>
> >> My thought is that in that case viommu_domain_finalise() will fail, do not proceed.
> >
> > That's undefined behaviour in C. You need to make sure this condition
> > is never reached. And spec does not make this illegal at all
> > so it looks like we actually need to handle this gracefully.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int viommu_add_resv_mem(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
> >>>> struct virtio_iommu_probe_resv_mem *mem,
> >>>> size_t len)
> >>>> @@ -499,6 +513,9 @@ static int viommu_probe_endpoint(struct viommu_dev
> >>> *viommu, struct device *dev)
> >>>> case VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_RESV_MEM:
> >>>> ret = viommu_add_resv_mem(vdev, (void *)prop, len);
> >>>> break;
> >>>> + case VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_PAGE_SIZE_MASK:
> >>>> + ret = viommu_set_pgsize_bitmap(vdev, (void *)prop, len);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> default:
> >>>> dev_err(dev, "unknown viommu prop 0x%x\n", type);
> >>>> }
> >>>> @@ -630,7 +647,7 @@ static int viommu_domain_finalise(struct
> >>>> viommu_endpoint *vdev,
> >>>>
> >>>> vdomain->id = (unsigned int)ret;
> >>>>
> >>>> - domain->pgsize_bitmap = viommu->pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>> + domain->pgsize_bitmap = vdev->pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>> domain->geometry = viommu->geometry;
> >>>>
> >>>> vdomain->map_flags = viommu->map_flags;
> >>>> @@ -654,6 +671,29 @@ static void viommu_domain_free(struct iommu_domain
> >>> *domain)
> >>>> kfree(vdomain);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Check whether the endpoint's capabilities are compatible with
> >>>> +other
> >>>> + * endpoints in the domain. Report any inconsistency.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static bool viommu_endpoint_is_compatible(struct viommu_endpoint *vdev,
> >>>> + struct viommu_domain *vdomain) {
> >>>> + struct device *dev = vdev->dev;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (vdomain->viommu != vdev->viommu) {
> >>>> + dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to foreign vIOMMU\n");
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (vdomain->domain.pgsize_bitmap != vdev->pgsize_bitmap) {
> >>>> + dev_err(dev, "incompatible domain bitmap 0x%lx != 0x%llx\n",
> >>>> + vdomain->domain.pgsize_bitmap, vdev->pgsize_bitmap);
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> I'm confused by this. So let's assume host supports pages sizes of 4k, 2M, 1G. It
> >>> signals this in the properties. Nice.
> >>> Now domain supports 4k, 2M and that's all. Why is that a problem?
> >>> Just don't use 1G ...
> >>
> >> Is not it too to change the existing domain properties, for devices already attached to domain? New devices must match to domain page-size.
> >
> > Again if IOMMU supports more page sizes than domain uses, why is
> > that a problem? Just don't utilize the bits domain does not use.
>
> I think I agree with you in that case. However it is a problem in the
> opposite, ie. when a new device is added and this latter has less
> options than the existing domain, right?
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
Well device initialization order is up to Linux really,
so it's annoying to set limits based on this.
Ideally we'd just use domain&device.
But if the limit is going only one way then I guess
it's workable. Requiring the exact match is probably too
onerous.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int viommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct
> >>>> device *dev) {
> >>>> int i;
> >>>> @@ -670,9 +710,8 @@ static int viommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain
> >>> *domain, struct device *dev)
> >>>> * owns it.
> >>>> */
> >>>> ret = viommu_domain_finalise(vdev, domain);
> >>>> - } else if (vdomain->viommu != vdev->viommu) {
> >>>> - dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to foreign vIOMMU\n");
> >>>> - ret = -EXDEV;
> >>>> + } else if (!viommu_endpoint_is_compatible(vdev, vdomain)) {
> >>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>> }
> >>>> mutex_unlock(&vdomain->mutex);
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -886,6 +925,7 @@ static int viommu_add_device(struct device *dev)
> >>>>
> >>>> vdev->dev = dev;
> >>>> vdev->viommu = viommu;
> >>>> + vdev->pgsize_bitmap = viommu->pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->resv_regions);
> >>>> dev_iommu_priv_set(dev, vdev);
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
> >>>> b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
> >>>> index 48e3c29223b5..2cced7accc99 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
> >>>
> >>> As any virtio UAPI change, you need to copy virtio TC at some point before this is
> >>> merged ...
> >>
> >> Jean already send patch for same
> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg06214.html
> >>
> >> Do we need to do anything additional?
> >
> >
> > Yes, that is spec patch. you need to see the UAPI patch to virtio-dev.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ struct virtio_iommu_req_unmap {
> >>>>
> >>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_NONE 0
> >>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_RESV_MEM 1
> >>>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_PAGE_SIZE_MASK 2
> >>>>
> >>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PROBE_T_MASK 0xfff
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Does host need to know that guest will ignore the page size mask?
> >>> Maybe we need a feature bit.
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -119,6 +120,12 @@ struct virtio_iommu_probe_property {
> >>>> __le16 length;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +struct virtio_iommu_probe_pgsize_mask {
> >>>> + struct virtio_iommu_probe_property head;
> >>>> + __u8 reserved[4];
> >>>> + __le64 pgsize_bitmap;
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> This is UAPI. Document the format of pgsize_bitmap please.
> >>
> >> Ok,
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Bharat
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_RESV_MEM_T_RESERVED 0
> >>>> #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_RESV_MEM_T_MSI 1
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.17.1
> >
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
