[PATCH v1 14/14] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user

[Nicolin Chen]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:53:46PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

> > > > +     case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VA:
> > > > +             cmd.tlbi.asid = inv_info->asid;
> > > > +             fallthrough;
> > > > +     case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VAA:
> > > > +             if (!granule_size || !(granule_size & smmu->pgsize_bitmap) ||
> > > 
> > > Non-range invalidations with TG=0 are perfectly legal, and should not be
> > > ignored.
> > 
> > I assume that you are talking about the pgsize_bitmap check.
> > 
> > QEMU embeds a !tg case into the granule_size [1]. So it might
> > not be straightforward to cover that case. Let me see how to
> > untangle different cases and handle them accordingly.
> 
> Oh, double-checking patch #2, that might be me misunderstanding the
> interface. I hadn't realised that the UAPI was apparently modelled on
> arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid() rather than actual SMMU commands :)

Yea. In fact, most of the invalidation info in QEMU was packed
for the previously defined general cache invalidation structure,
and the range invalidation part is still not quite independent.

> I really think UAPI should reflect the hardware and encode TG and TTL
> directly. Especially since there's technically a flaw in the current
> driver where we assume TTL in cases where it isn't actually known, thus
> may potentially fail to invalidate level 2 block entries when removing a
> level 1 table, since io-pgtable passes the level 3 granule in that case.

Do you mean something like hw_info forwarding pgsize_bitmap/tg
to the guest? Or the other direction?

> When range invalidation came along, the distinction between "all leaves
> are definitely at the last level" and "use last-level granularity to
> make sure everything at at any level is hit" started to matter, but the
> interface never caught up. It hasn't seemed desperately urgent to fix
> (who does 1GB+ unmaps outside of VFIO teardown anyway?), but we must
> definitely not bake the same mistake into user ABI.
> 
> Of course, there might then be cases where we need to transform
> non-range commands into range commands for the sake of workarounds, but
> that's our own problem to deal with.

Noted it down.

> > > What about NSNH_ALL? That still needs to invalidate all the S1 context
> > > that the guest *thinks* it's invalidating.
> > 
> > NSNH_ALL is translated to NH_ALL at the guest level. But maybe
> > it should have been done here instead.
> 
> Yes. It seems the worst of both worlds to have an interface which takes
> raw opcodes rather than an enum of supported commands, but still
> requires userspace to know which opcodes are supported and which ones
> don't work as expected even though they are entirely reasonable to use
> in the context of the stage-1-only SMMU being emulated.

Maybe a list of supported TLBI commands via the hw_info uAPI?

Thanks
Nic