Re: [RFC PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: Remove shutdown callback

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:43:03PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2020-06-08 13:48, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 04:39:18PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > > Remove SMMU shutdown callback since it seems to cause more
> > > problems than benefits. With this callback, we need to make
> > > sure that all clients/consumers of SMMU do not perform any
> > > DMA activity once the SMMU is shutdown and translation is
> > > disabled. In other words we need to add shutdown callbacks
> > > for all those clients to make sure they do not perform any
> > > DMA or else we see all kinds of weird crashes during reboot
> > > or shutdown. This is clearly not scalable as the number of
> > > clients of SMMU would vary across SoCs and we would need to
> > > add shutdown callbacks to almost all drivers eventually.
> > > This callback was added for kexec usecase where it was known
> > > to cause memory corruptions when SMMU was not shutdown but
> > > that does not directly relate to SMMU because the memory
> > > corruption could be because of the client of SMMU which is
> > > not shutdown properly before booting into new kernel. So in
> > > that case, we need to identify the client of SMMU causing
> > > the memory corruption and add appropriate shutdown callback
> > > to the client rather than to the SMMU.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 6 ------
> > >  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c    | 6 ------
> > >  2 files changed, 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > This feels like a giant bodge to me and I think that any driver which
> > continues to perform DMA after its ->shutdown() function has been
> > invoked
> > is buggy. Wouldn't that cause problems with kexec(), for example?
> > 
> 
> Yes it is definitely a bug in the client driver if DMA is performed
> after shutdown callback of that respective driver is invoked and it must
> be fixed in that driver. But here the problem I was describing is not that,
> most of the drivers do not have a shutdown callback to begin with and adding
> it just because of shutdown dependency on SMMU doesn't seem so well because
> we can have many more such clients in the future and then we have to just go
> on adding the shutdown callbacks everywhere.

I'm not sure why you're trying to treat these cases differently. It's also
not "just because of SMMU", is it? Like I said, kexec() would be broken
regardless.

The bottom line is that after running ->shutdown() (or skipping it if it's
not implemented) for a driver, then the device must no longer perform DMA.

> > There's a clear shutdown dependency ordering, where the clients of the
> > SMMU need to shutdown before the SMMU itself, but that's not really
> > the SMMU driver's problem to solve.
> > 
> 
> The problem with kexec may not be directly related to SMMU as you said
> above if DMA is performed after the client shutdown callback, then its a
> bug in the client driver, so that needs to be fixed in the client driver,
> not the SMMU. So is there any point in having the SMMU shutdown callback?

Given that the SMMU mediates DMA transactions for all upstream masters
based on in-memory data (e.g. page tables), then I think it's a /very/
good idea to tear that down as part of the shutdown callback before
the memory is effectively free()d.

One thing I would be in favour of is changing the ->shutdown() code to
honour disable_bypass=1 so that we put the SMMU in an aborting state
instead of passthrough. Would that help at all? It would at least
avoid the memory corruption on missing shutdown callback.

> As you see, with this SMMU shutdown callback, we need to add shutdown
> callbacks in all the client drivers.

I don't see the problem with that. Why is it a problem?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel