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=-2.2 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 DAAFEC432C3 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CB521741 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:51:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B5CB521741 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4C2F56B0505; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 473F66B0506; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:51:57 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3AFAE6B0507; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:51:57 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0165.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.165]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281F96B0505 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 02:51:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE68C45A0 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:51:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76204917432.19.judge72_4b2370f9c002a X-HE-Tag: judge72_4b2370f9c002a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1859 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 7F47868B05; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:51:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 08:51:53 +0100 From: "hch@lst.de" To: Thomas Hellstrom Cc: "hch@lst.de" , "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "christian.koenig@amd.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited Message-ID: <20191128075153.GD20659@lst.de> References: <20191127144006.25998-1-hch@lst.de> <20191127144006.25998-3-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:22:57PM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > > bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev) > > { > > + if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) > > + return true; > > return min_not_zero(dma_get_mask(dev), dev->bus_dma_limit) < > > dma_get_required_mask(dev); > > } > > Any chance to have the case > > (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE) > > also included? We have a hard time handling that in generic code. Do we have any good use case for SWIOTLB_FORCE not that we have force_dma_unencrypted? I'd love to be able to get rid of it..