[PATCH] virtio: Try to untangle DMA coherency

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 01:34:03PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 02/02/17 11:26, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:19:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:27:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 08:09:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>> I'd like to do that instead. It's fastboot doing the unreasonable thing
> >>>> here and deviating from what every other legacy device without exception
> >>>> did for years. If this means fastboot will need to update to virtio 1,
> >>>> all the better.
> >>>
> >>> The problem still exists with virtio 1, unless we require that the
> >>> "dma-coherent" property is set/unset correctly when VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM
> >>> is advertised by the device (which is what I suggested in my reply).
> >>
> >> I'm not ignoring that, but I need to understand that part a bit better.
> >> I'll reply to that patch in a day or two after looking at how _CCA is
> >> supposed to work.
> > 
> > Thanks. I do think that whatever solution we come up with for virtio 1
> > should influence what we do for legacy.
> > 
> >>> We can't detect the fastmodel,
> >>
> >> Surely, it puts a hardware id somewhere? I think you mean
> >> fastmodel isn't always affected, right?
> > 
> > I don't think there's a hardware ID. The thing is, the fastmodel is a
> > toolkit for building all sorts of platforms: you can chop and change
> > the CPUs, the peripherals, the memory, the interrupt controller, the
> > interconnect etc. Pretty much everything can be customised. So, for
> > any fastmodel configuration that places virtio upstream of the SMMU
> > (which is common, because virtio is one of the few DMA-capable peripherals
> > that the fastmodel supports), we need to do something special.
> > 
> >> I'd like to see basically
> >>
> >> if (fastmodel)
> >> 	a pile of special work-arounds
> >> else
> >> 	not less hacky but more common virtio work-arounds
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> And then I can apply whatever comes from @arm.com and not
> >> worry about breaking actual hardware.
> > 
> > What we could do is call iommu_group_get(&vdev->dev) for legacy
> 
> Actually, that should be vdev->dev.parent - I'm now not sure quite what
> I managed to successfully test yesterday, but apparently it wasn't this
> patch :(
> 
> > devices if CONFIG_ARM64. If that returns non-NULL, then we know that
> > the device is upstream of an SMMU, which means it must be the fastmodel.
> 
> We can boot 32-bit kernels on models, so I'd be inclined to keep
> CONFIG_ARM included, but I do tend to agree that explicitly checking for
> an IOMMU is probably the cleanest approach if we reposition this as a
> more specific quirk. I'll split apart the "Fast Models are wacky" vs.
> "uh-oh device coherency" aspects and spin a v2 so that we can
> (hopefully) sort the regression out ASAP.
> 
> Robin.
> 
> > 
> > Will
> > 

I still think the right thing to do for this platform is to add an API
for driver to say "disable protection for this device and allow
this device 1:1 access to all memory".  This
would make both platforms which bypass the iommu and platforms that
don't happy as PA == dma address.

-- 
MST