[PATCH v6 04/20] dma-pool: track decrypted atomic pools and select them via attrs

[Petr Tesarik]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:37:40 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:55:47AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> writes:
> >   
> > > The sashiko note does look legit though:
> > >
> > > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_DIRECT_REMAP) &&
> > > 	    !gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp) && !coherent) {
> > > 		page = dma_alloc_from_pool(dev, PAGE_ALIGN(size), &cpu_addr,
> > > 					   gfp, attrs, NULL);
> > > 		if (!page)
> > > 			return NULL;
> > >
> > > I don't see anything doing the force_dma_unencrypted test along this
> > > callchain..
> > >
> > > I guess it should be done one step up in dma_alloc_attrs() instead of
> > > in dma_direct_alloc()?
> > >  
> > 
> > I think we should do something similar to what dma_map_phys() does here,
> > considering that we only support DMA direct with DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED/DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_CC_SHARED.  
> 
> Yeah, I think that's the right idea for now..
> 
> > +	if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev))
> > +		attrs |= DMA_ATTR_ALLOC_CC_SHARED;
> > +
> > +	is_cc_shared = attrs & DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED;
> > +
> >  	if (dma_alloc_direct(dev, ops) || arch_dma_alloc_direct(dev)) {
> >  		cpu_addr = dma_direct_alloc(dev, size, dma_handle, flag, attrs);
> > +	} else if (is_cc_shared) {
> > +		trace_dma_alloc(dev, NULL, 0, size, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL, flag,
> > +				attrs);  
> 
> But it would be clearer to put the test in the iommu_ functions I
> think, since they are the ones that have the issue. We will need to
> fix it someday..
> 
> I think we can ignore the op-> functions, arches cannot support CC and
> still use dma_map_ops..

Hm, sounds reasonable. Should we probably enforce this at configure or
build time?

Petr T