Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] powerpc/kernel/iommu: Align size for IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE on iommu_*_coherent()

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>]

On 04/09/2020 16:04, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 14:41 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> I am new to this, so I am trying to understand how a memory page mapped
>>> as DMA, and used for something else could be a problem.
>>
>>   From the device prospective, there is PCI space and everything from 0
>> till 1<<64 is accessible and what is that mapped to - the device does
>> not know. PHB's IOMMU is the thing to notice invalid access and raise
>> EEH but PHB only knows about PCI->physical memory mapping (with IOMMU
>> pages) but nothing about the host kernel pages. Does this help? Thanks,
> 
> According to our conversation on Slack:
> 1- There is a problem if a hypervisor gives to it's VMs contiguous
> memory blocks that are not aligned to IOMMU pages, because then an
> iommu_map_page() could map some memory in this VM and some memory in
> other VM / process.
> 2- To guarantee this, we should have system pagesize >= iommu_pagesize
> 
> One way to get (2) is by doing this in enable_ddw():
> 	if ((query.page_size & 4) && PAGE_SHIFT >= 24) {

You won't ever (well, soon) see PAGE_SHIFT==24, it is either 4K or 64K. 
However 16MB IOMMU pages is fine - if hypervisor uses huge pages for VMs 
RAM, it also then advertises huge IOMMU pages in ddw-query. So for the 
1:1 case there must be no "PAGE_SHIFT >= 24".


> 		page_shift = 24; /* 16MB */
> 	} else if ((query.page_size & 2) &&  PAGE_SHIFT >= 16 ) {
> 		page_shift = 16; /* 64kB */
> 	} else if (query.page_size & 1 &&  PAGE_SHIFT >= 12) {
> 		page_shift = 12; /* 4kB */
> 	[...]
> 
> Another way of solving this, would be adding in LoPAR documentation
> that the blocksize of contiguous memory the hypervisor gives a VM
> should always be aligned to IOMMU pagesize offered.

I think this is assumed already by the design of the DDW API.

> 
> I think the best approach would be first sending the above patch, which
> is faster, and then get working into adding that to documentation, so
> hypervisors guarantee this.
> 
> If this gets into the docs, we can revert the patch.
> 
> What do you think?
I think we diverted from the original patch :) I am not quite sure what 
you were fixing there. Thanks,


-- 
Alexey