[PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
>> Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
>> own fault handlers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse at codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>
>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>   	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>   	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>>   	int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
>> +	int ret;
>>   
>>   	fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
>>   	if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
>> @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
>>   	iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
>>   	cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
>>   
>> -	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> -	"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>> +	ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
>> +		fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
>> +
>> +	if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>> +		dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
>> +		"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
>>   			    fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
>>   
>> -	arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
>> +	 * they will handle resuming on their own
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
>> +		arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> 
> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?

If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault 
indicator bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled 
transaction is actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.

Robin.

> I think
> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
> 
> Will
>