[PATCH v6 06/20] dma: swiotlb: track pool encryption state and honor DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.com> writes:

> On Thu,  4 Jun 2026 14:09:45 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar at kernel.org> wrote:
>

...

>>  /*
>>   * If memory encryption is supported, phys_to_dma will set the memory encryption
>>   * bit in the DMA address, and dma_to_phys will clear it.
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swiotlb.h b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
>> index 29187cec90d8..4dcbf3931be1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swiotlb.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swiotlb.h
>> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct io_tlb_pool {
>>  	struct list_head node;
>>  	struct rcu_head rcu;
>>  	bool transient;
>> +	bool unencrypted;
>
> IIUC this is a copy of the unencrypted member in the corresponding
> struct io_tlb_mem. In other words, if pools are allocated dynamically,
> all pools must have the same encryption state, correct?
>

That is correct. The reason we have the unencrypted member in struct
io_tlb_pool is that we need it in swiotlb_dyn_free().

When freeing memory from an unencrypted pool, we need to convert the
memory back to private/encrypted

>
>>  #endif
>>  };
>>  
>> @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ struct io_tlb_mem {
>>  	struct dentry *debugfs;
>>  	bool force_bounce;
>>  	bool for_alloc;
>> +	bool unencrypted;
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC
>>  	bool can_grow;
>>  	u64 phys_limit;
>> @@ -282,7 +284,8 @@ static inline void swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
>>  extern void swiotlb_print_info(void);

....

>> @@ -604,30 +621,26 @@ static struct page *alloc_dma_pages(gfp_t gfp, size_t bytes, u64 phys_limit)
>>   * @dev:	Device for which a memory pool is allocated.
>>   * @bytes:	Size of the buffer.
>>   * @phys_limit:	Maximum allowed physical address of the buffer.
>> + * @attrs:	DMA attributes for the allocation.
>>   * @gfp:	GFP flags for the allocation.
>>   *
>>   * Return: Allocated pages, or %NULL on allocation failure.
>>   */
>>  static struct page *swiotlb_alloc_tlb(struct device *dev, size_t bytes,
>> -		u64 phys_limit, gfp_t gfp)
>> +		u64 phys_limit, unsigned long attrs, gfp_t gfp)
>
> If my assumption above is correct, then I prefer to add a struct
> io_tlb_mem *mem parameter here and calculate the allocation attributes
> inside this function, so you don't have to repeat it in the callers.
>

Will switch to that. That is, we will use struct io_tlb_mem->unencrypted
to determine the pool attribute instead of using unsigned long attrs

>
>>  {
>>  	struct page *page;
>> -	unsigned long attrs = 0;
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Allocate from the atomic pools if memory is encrypted and
>>  	 * the allocation is atomic, because decrypting may block.
>>  	 */
>> -	if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp) && dev && force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) {
>> +	if (!gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp) && (attrs & DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED)) {
>
> You're removing the check that dev is non-NULL. This is fine, because
> the only call with dev == NULL is from swiotlb_dyn_alloc(), and that one
> uses GFP_KERNEL (i.e. allows blocking). However, if this is an intended
> optimization, I'd rather have it in a separate commit, with this
> explanation why it's OK to do it.
>
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.
>

I'll add that back.

-aneesh