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=-15.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 BBC99C4338F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E0A60EFD for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231700AbhGWRN6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:13:58 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:5318 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229847AbhGWRN4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:13:56 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16NHXjsE010920; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:54:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=tAPkpQeFLm7/MzUH5kG/tXZNZdNBdy5KfbESo14Kjvc=; b=c6quvI6RJqixGnLflv7xp8GK69x7HbFFN8UrLiLiqJHQ5SHMXp1ksiqgOHqMHuGw1n6u 5L1LOSPwckA0bcLpa9iUNs1cG3tI3GxwWYjXji+iRLRMvijyTsMCwViab+frGF5qTuzf i15JIsg8uCma1WRABxR9/v8DxdmLcjqAeGoTn7NOnNDMej0ZoQUpAD0eFsFSSMXEY2j3 Frw0gitAS2hTl0Dgjg3Ibi/8Syvn8GZEVceIXoDnrAL7oq6t291xXuQM2O3IGcQBO0vA JOw2RY92samWmhE03Ecm7fCbGZy0CIw5d/URJjAt4tjd3pFK+SXd5FvvNIrKShxh0Qtu UQ== Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3a0216rvwy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:54:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16NHljdE009736; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:54:03 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 39upu89xuf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:54:03 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 16NHpSY931523202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:51:28 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B294203F; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:53:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3246942042; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:53:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc7455500831.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.25.128]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:53:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix restricted DMA vs swiotlb_exit() To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Halil Pasic , Will Deacon , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , Claire Chang , Christoph Hellwig , Robin Murphy , Nathan Chancellor , linux-s390 , Vasily Gorbik , Heiko Carstens References: <20210720133826.9075-1-will@kernel.org> <57e37ef9-c055-d6a6-2244-2c7dd243b5c1@de.ibm.com> <20210723031252.655d6a83.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20210723104701.3f8ac227.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:53:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 6vBaF-yRpOy8_h-_mo-P5w6Euu-lMiay X-Proofpoint-GUID: 6vBaF-yRpOy8_h-_mo-P5w6Euu-lMiay Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-23_09:2021-07-23,2021-07-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2107230106 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23.07.21 16:01, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:50:57AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 23.07.21 10:47, Halil Pasic wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 >>> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>>> Resending with the correct email of Heiko.... >>>> >>>> On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 >>>>> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>>> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>>>> Hi again, folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@kernel.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only changes since v1 are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly >>>>>>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes >>>>>>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode >>>>>> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc >>>>>> Author: Claire Chang >>>>>> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 >>>>>> >>>>>> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more >>>>>> things are broken. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any idea what else might be broken? >>>>> >>>>> I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since >>>>> that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is >>>>> initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. >>>>> >>>>> --------------------8<------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> From: Halil Pasic >>>>> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb >>>>> >>>>> Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for >>>>> swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so >>>>> before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise >>>>> io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices >>>>> that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force >>>>> having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. >>>>> >>>>> Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new >>>>> requirement. >>>> I would add: >>>> Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") >>>> as this patch breaks things >>>> and >>>> Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization") >>>> >>>> to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things. >>> >>> I agree. Do we want this backported to the stable releases that have >>> 64e1f0c531d1 (i.e. do we need a cc stable) or should the fixes tag just >>> serve as metadata? My guess is, it's the former. In that sense should I >>> add the tags along with an explanation for the second fixes respin with >>> cc stable? >>> >>> (BTW I don't think this formally qualifies for the stable backports, but >>> I hope we can make an exception...) >> >> I think it makes sense for stable as it is cleaner to set the flags before >> calling the init function. cc stable would be better and the right way >> according to process, but the Fixes tag is mostly enough. > > But the reaso for fixing this is for code that is not yet in Linus's > tree? > > I can just pick this patch up and add it in the pile I have for the next > merge window? That would also work for me. I think Halil wanted to send out and v2. In any case Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger so that you can take this via the swiotlb tree. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic >>>> >>>> I can confirm that this fixes the problem. This also makes sense codewise. >>>> >>>> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger >>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Halil >>>> >>>> Konrad, Heiko, Vasily, any preference which tree this goes? I think s390 >>>> would be easiest, but that requires that the patches in the swiotlb tree have >>>> fixed commit IDs. >>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>>>> index 8ac710de1ab1..07bbee9b7320 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c >>>>> @@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ static void pv_init(void) >>>>> return; >>>>> /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ >>>>> + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; >>>>> swiotlb_init(1); >>>>> swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); >>>>> - swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; >>>>> } >>>>> void __init mem_init(void) >>>