Re: [PATCH v12 10/10] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add stall support for platform devices

[Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

Hi Jean,

On 2/1/21 12:12 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:29:09PM +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> Some rather minor comments§questions below that may not justify a respin.
>>
>> On 1/27/21 4:43 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>>> -static bool arm_smmu_iopf_supported(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>>> +bool arm_smmu_master_iopf_supported(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>>>  {
>>> -	return false;
>>> +	/* We're not keeping track of SIDs in fault events */
>> shall we? [*] below
> 
> That would require storing the incoming SID into the iommu_fault_event
> struct, and retrieve it in arm_smmu_page_response(). Easy enough, but I
> don't think it's needed for existing devices.
OK
> 
>>> +	if (master->num_streams != 1)
>>> +		return false;
> [...]
>>> +static int arm_smmu_page_response(struct device *dev,
>>> +				  struct iommu_fault_event *unused,
>>> +				  struct iommu_page_response *resp)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent cmd = {0};
>>> +	struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>>> +	int sid = master->streams[0].id;
>> [*]
>>> +
>>> +	if (master->stall_enabled) {
>>> +		cmd.opcode		= CMDQ_OP_RESUME;
>>> +		cmd.resume.sid		= sid;
>>> +		cmd.resume.stag		= resp->grpid;
>>> +		switch (resp->code) {
>>> +		case IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID:
>> add fallthrough?
> 
> I think fallthrough is mainly useful to tell reader and compiler that a
> break was omitted on purpose. When two cases are stuck together the intent
> to merge the flow is clear enough in my opinion. GCC's
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough doesn't warn in this case.
OK
> 
>>> +		case IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE:
>>> +			cmd.resume.resp = CMDQ_RESUME_0_RESP_ABORT;
>>> +			break;
> [...]
>>> +static int arm_smmu_handle_evt(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, u64 *evt)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +	u32 reason;
>>> +	u32 perm = 0;
>>> +	struct arm_smmu_master *master;
>>> +	bool ssid_valid = evt[0] & EVTQ_0_SSV;
>>> +	u32 sid = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_0_SID, evt[0]);
>>> +	struct iommu_fault_event fault_evt = { };
>>> +	struct iommu_fault *flt = &fault_evt.fault;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Stage-2 is always pinned at the moment */
>>> +	if (evt[1] & EVTQ_1_S2)
>>> +		return -EFAULT;
>>> +
>>> +	master = arm_smmu_find_master(smmu, sid);
>>> +	if (!master)
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +	if (evt[1] & EVTQ_1_RnW)
>>> +		perm |= IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_READ;
>>> +	else
>>> +		perm |= IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_WRITE;
>>> +
>>> +	if (evt[1] & EVTQ_1_InD)
>>> +		perm |= IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_EXEC;
>>> +
>>> +	if (evt[1] & EVTQ_1_PnU)
>>> +		perm |= IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_PRIV;
>>> +
>>> +	switch (FIELD_GET(EVTQ_0_ID, evt[0])) {
>>> +	case EVT_ID_TRANSLATION_FAULT:
>>> +	case EVT_ID_ADDR_SIZE_FAULT:
>>> +	case EVT_ID_ACCESS_FAULT:
>>> +		reason = IOMMU_FAULT_REASON_PTE_FETCH;
>> Doesn't it rather map to IOMMU_FAULT_REASON_ACCESS?
>> /* access flag check failed */"
> 
> Good point, I guess it didn't exist when I wrote this. And ADDR_SIZE_FAULT
> corresponds to IOMMU_FAULT_REASON_OOR_ADDRESS now, right?
yes it dies
> 
> By the way the wording on those two fault reasons, "access flag" and
> "stage", seems arch-specific - x86 names are "accessed flag" and "level".
> 
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case EVT_ID_PERMISSION_FAULT:
>>> +		reason = IOMMU_FAULT_REASON_PERMISSION;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (evt[1] & EVTQ_1_STALL) {
>>> +		flt->type = IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQ;
>>> +		flt->prm = (struct iommu_fault_page_request) {
>>> +			.flags = IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_LAST_PAGE,
>>> +			.grpid = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_1_STAG, evt[1]),
>>> +			.perm = perm,
>>> +			.addr = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_2_ADDR, evt[2]),
>>> +		};
>>> +
>>> +		if (ssid_valid) {
>>> +			flt->prm.flags |= IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID;
>>> +			flt->prm.pasid = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_0_SSID, evt[0]);
>>> +		}
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		flt->type = IOMMU_FAULT_DMA_UNRECOV;
>>> +		flt->event = (struct iommu_fault_unrecoverable) {
>>> +			.reason = reason,
>>> +			.flags = IOMMU_FAULT_UNRECOV_ADDR_VALID |
>>> +				 IOMMU_FAULT_UNRECOV_FETCH_ADDR_VALID,
>> nit: shall IOMMU_FAULT_UNRECOV_FETCH_ADDR_VALID be set here? Supported
>> unrecoverable faults feature the IPA field which is UNKNOWN for S1
>> translations. fetch_addr rather was
>> corresponding to WALK_EABT.Fetch_addr to me.
> 
> Right I should drop the IPA part entirely, since we don't report S2 faults
> in this patch.
OK

But as I mentioned this can be fixed separately if you don't have other
comments on this version.

Thanks

Eric
> 
> Thanks,
> Jean
> 
>>> +			.perm = perm,
>>> +			.addr = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_2_ADDR, evt[2]),
>>> +			.fetch_addr = FIELD_GET(EVTQ_3_IPA, evt[3]),
>>> +		};
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu