[PATCH 2/2] iommu: Get DT/ACPI parsing into the proper probe path

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:49:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

> much just calling the same path twice. At client driver probe time,
> dev->driver is obviously set; conversely at device_add(), or a
> subsequent bus_iommu_probe(), any device waiting for an IOMMU really

Could you put the dev->driver test into iommu_device_use_default_domain()?

It looks like many of the cases are just guarding that call.

> should *not* have a driver already, so we can use that as a condition to
> disambiguate the two cases, and avoid recursing back into the IOMMU core
> at the wrong times.

Which sounds like this:

> +		mutex_unlock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
> +		dev->bus->dma_configure(dev);
> +		mutex_lock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
> +	}

Shouldn't call iommu_device_use_default_domain() ?

But... I couldn't guess what the problem with calling it is?

In the not-probed case it will see dev->iommu_group is NULL and succeed.

The probed case could be prevented by checking dev->iommu_group sooner
in __iommu_probe_device()?

Anyhow, the approach seems OK

> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> index 9f4efa8f75a6..42b8f1833c3c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -1619,6 +1619,9 @@ static int acpi_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *id_in)
>  {
>  	int err;
>  
> +	if (device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> +		return 0;

This is unlocked and outside a driver context, it should have a
comment explaining why races with probe can't happen?

> +	/*
> +	 * For FDT-based systems and ACPI IORT/VIOT, the common firmware parsing
> +	 * is buried in the bus dma_configure path. Properly unpicking that is
> +	 * still a fairly big job, so for now just invoke the whole thing. Our
> +	 * bus_iommu_probe() walk may see devices with drivers already bound,
> +	 * but that must mean they're already configured - either probed by
> +	 * another IOMMU, or there was no IOMMU for iommu_fwspec_init() to wait
> +	 * for - so either way we can safely skip this and avoid worrying about
> +	 * those recursing back here thinking they need a replay call.
> +	 */
> +	if (!dev->driver && dev->bus->dma_configure) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
> +		dev->bus->dma_configure(dev);
> +		mutex_lock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * At this point, either valid devices now have a fwspec, or we can
> +	 * assume that only one of Intel, AMD, s390, PAMU or legacy SMMUv2 can
> +	 * be present, and that any of their registered instances has suitable
> +	 * ops for probing, and thus cheekily co-opt the same mechanism.
> +	 */
> +	ops = iommu_fwspec_ops(dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev));
> +	if (!ops)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
>  	/* Device is probed already if in a group */
>  	if (dev->iommu_group)
>  		return 0;

This is the test I mean, if iommu_group is set then
dev->iommu->iommu_dev->ops is supposed to be valid too. It seems like
it should be done earlier..

> +	/*
> +	 * And if we do now see any replay calls, they would indicate someone
> +	 * misusing the dma_configure path outside bus code.
> +	 */
> +	if (dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev) && dev->driver)
> +		dev_WARN(dev, "late IOMMU probe at driver bind, something fishy here!\n");

WARN_ON_ONCE or dump_stack() to get the stack trace out?

> @@ -121,6 +121,9 @@ int of_iommu_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *master_np,
>  	if (!master_np)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  
> +	if (device_iommu_mapped(dev))
> +		return 0;

Same note

> @@ -151,7 +154,12 @@ int of_iommu_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *master_np,
>  		iommu_fwspec_free(dev);
>  	mutex_unlock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
>  
> -	if (!err && dev->bus)
> +	/*
> +	 * If we have reason to believe the IOMMU driver missed the initial
> +	 * iommu_probe_device() call for dev, try to fix it up. This should
> +	 * no longer happen unless of_dma_configure() is being misused.
> +	 */
> +	if (!err && dev->driver)
>  		err = iommu_probe_device(dev);

This is being conservative? After some time of nobody complaining
it can be removed?

Jason