From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B724C433E0 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD2A208B6 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729389AbgF2V3N (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:29:13 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:48542 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727976AbgF2Smj (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05TFajYC188023; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:10:49 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31ydmqmpxk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:10:49 -0400 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 05TGAm7D150990; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:10:48 -0400 Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31ydmqmpw9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:10:48 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05TG6QpM016445; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:46 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31wyyase64-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:46 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 05TGAhQt46924020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:43 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4444C05A; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08124C046; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3016276355.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.79.64]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:10:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] s390: virtio: let arch accept devices without IOMMU feature To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Halil Pasic , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com References: <1592390637-17441-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1592390637-17441-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20200618002956.5f179de4.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20200619112051.74babdb1.cohuck@redhat.com> <7fe6e9ab-fd5a-3f92-1f3a-f9e6805d3730@linux.ibm.com> <20200629154439.14cc5ae7.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: <4777633f-728b-1a67-c870-0fafa313e468@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 18:10:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200629154439.14cc5ae7.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-29_15:2020-06-29,2020-06-29 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006290105 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 2020-06-29 15:44, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:14:04 +0200 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 2020-06-19 11:20, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 00:29:56 +0200 >>> Halil Pasic wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:57 +0200 >>>> Pierre Morel wrote: > >>>>> @@ -179,6 +194,13 @@ int virtio_finalize_features(struct virtio_device *dev) >>>>> if (!virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> >>>>> + if (arch_needs_virtio_iommu_platform(dev) && >>>>> + !virtio_has_feature(dev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) { >>>>> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, >>>>> + "virtio: device must provide VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM\n"); > > [Side note: wasn't there a patch renaming this bit on the list? I think > this name is only kept for userspace compat.] Sorry, I do not understand what you expect from me. On which mailing list you think there is a patch on? > >>>> >>>> I'm not sure, divulging the current Linux name of this feature bit is a >>>> good idea, but if everybody else is fine with this, I don't care that >>> >>> Not sure if that feature name will ever change, as it is exported in >>> headers. At most, we might want to add the new ACCESS_PLATFORM define >>> and keep the old one, but that would still mean some churn. >>> >>>> much. An alternative would be: >>>> "virtio: device falsely claims to have full access to the memory, >>>> aborting the device" >>> >>> "virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" ? >>> >>> But no issue with keeping the current message. >>> >> >> If it is OK, I would like to specify that the arch is responsible to >> accept or not the device. >> The reason why the device is not accepted without IOMMU_PLATFORM is arch >> specific. > > Hm, I'd think the reason is always the same (the device cannot access > the memory directly), just the way to figure out whether that is the > case or not is arch-specific, as with so many other things. No real > need to go into detail here, I think. > As you like, so I rename the subject to: "virtio: device does not work with limited memory access" Regards, Pierre -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen