[PATCH v7 25/36] swiotlb: Add warnings for use of bounce buffers with SME

[Tom Lendacky]

On 6/21/2017 5:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:54:36PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Add warnings to let the user know when bounce buffers are being used for
>> DMA when SME is active.  Since the bounce buffers are not in encrypted
>> memory, these notifications are to allow the user to determine some
>> appropriate action - if necessary.  Actions can range from utilizing an
>> IOMMU, replacing the device with another device that can support 64-bit
>> DMA, ignoring the message if the device isn't used much, etc.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky at amd.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/dma-mapping.h |   11 +++++++++++
>>   include/linux/mem_encrypt.h |    8 ++++++++
>>   lib/swiotlb.c               |    3 +++
>>   3 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> index 4f3eece..ee2307e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
>>   #include <linux/kmemcheck.h>
>>   #include <linux/bug.h>
>> +#include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
>>   
>>   /**
>>    * List of possible attributes associated with a DMA mapping. The semantics
>> @@ -577,6 +578,11 @@ static inline int dma_set_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
>>   
>>   	if (!dev->dma_mask || !dma_supported(dev, mask))
>>   		return -EIO;
>> +
>> +	/* Since mask is unsigned, this can only be true if SME is active */
>> +	if (mask < sme_dma_mask())
>> +		dev_warn(dev, "SME is active, device will require DMA bounce buffers\n");
>> +
>>   	*dev->dma_mask = mask;
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -596,6 +602,11 @@ static inline int dma_set_coherent_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
>>   {
>>   	if (!dma_supported(dev, mask))
>>   		return -EIO;
>> +
>> +	/* Since mask is unsigned, this can only be true if SME is active */
>> +	if (mask < sme_dma_mask())
>> +		dev_warn(dev, "SME is active, device will require DMA bounce buffers\n");
> 
> Looks to me like those two checks above need to be a:
> 
> void sme_check_mask(struct device *dev, u64 mask)
> {
>          if (!sme_me_mask)
>                  return;
> 
>          /* Since mask is unsigned, this can only be true if SME is active */
>          if (mask < (((u64)sme_me_mask << 1) - 1))
>                  dev_warn(dev, "SME is active, device will require DMA bounce buffers\n");
> }
> 
> which gets called and sme_dma_mask() is not really needed.

Makes a lot of sense, I'll update the patch.

Thanks,
Tom

>