From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com, "list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>," <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>, Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>, Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org>, Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Indicate that we want to force strict DMA for untrusted devices Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:46:50 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VQEM=Gtzrkd-s_ufzi_Y7b1GPCOVROftmjLDWiMEd0qA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YNSKyu/a8S3Qywbc@kroah.com> Hi, On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 04:52:45PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > At the moment the generic IOMMU framework reaches into the PCIe device > > to check the "untrusted" state and uses this information to figure out > > if it should be running the IOMMU in strict or non-strict mode. Let's > > instead set the new boolean in "struct device" to indicate when we > > want forced strictness. > > > > NOTE: we still continue to set the "untrusted" bit in PCIe since that > > apparently is used for more than just IOMMU strictness. It probably > > makes sense for a later patchset to clarify all of the other needs we > > have for "untrusted" PCIe devices (perhaps add more booleans into the > > "struct device") so we can fully eliminate the need for the IOMMU > > framework to reach into a PCIe device. > > It feels like the iommu code should not be messing with pci devices at > all, please don't do this. I think it's generally agreed that having the IOMMU code reach into the PCIe code is pretty non-ideal, but that's not something that my patch series added. The IOMMU code already has special cases to reach into PCIe devices to decide strictness. I was actually trying to reduce the amount of it. > Why does this matter? Why wouldn't a pci device use "strict" iommu at > all times? What happens if it does not? Why are PCI devices special? This is something pre-existing in Linux. In my patch series I was trying to make PCI devices less special and take some of the concepts from there and expand them, but in a cleaner way. It sounds like in my v2 I should steer away from this and leave the existing PCI hacks alone. -Doug
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com, Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org>, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>, Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, " <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Indicate that we want to force strict DMA for untrusted devices Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:46:50 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VQEM=Gtzrkd-s_ufzi_Y7b1GPCOVROftmjLDWiMEd0qA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YNSKyu/a8S3Qywbc@kroah.com> Hi, On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 04:52:45PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > At the moment the generic IOMMU framework reaches into the PCIe device > > to check the "untrusted" state and uses this information to figure out > > if it should be running the IOMMU in strict or non-strict mode. Let's > > instead set the new boolean in "struct device" to indicate when we > > want forced strictness. > > > > NOTE: we still continue to set the "untrusted" bit in PCIe since that > > apparently is used for more than just IOMMU strictness. It probably > > makes sense for a later patchset to clarify all of the other needs we > > have for "untrusted" PCIe devices (perhaps add more booleans into the > > "struct device") so we can fully eliminate the need for the IOMMU > > framework to reach into a PCIe device. > > It feels like the iommu code should not be messing with pci devices at > all, please don't do this. I think it's generally agreed that having the IOMMU code reach into the PCIe code is pretty non-ideal, but that's not something that my patch series added. The IOMMU code already has special cases to reach into PCIe devices to decide strictness. I was actually trying to reduce the amount of it. > Why does this matter? Why wouldn't a pci device use "strict" iommu at > all times? What happens if it does not? Why are PCI devices special? This is something pre-existing in Linux. In my patch series I was trying to make PCI devices less special and take some of the concepts from there and expand them, but in a cleaner way. It sounds like in my v2 I should steer away from this and leave the existing PCI hacks alone. -Doug _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-24 13:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-21 23:52 [PATCH 0/6] iommu: Enable devices to request non-strict DMA, starting with QCom SD/MMC Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 1/6] drivers: base: Add the concept of "pre_probe" to drivers Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-24 13:35 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:35 ` Greg KH 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers: base: Add bits to struct device to control iommu strictness Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-24 13:36 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:36 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:42 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-24 13:42 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] PCI: Indicate that we want to force strict DMA for untrusted devices Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-24 13:38 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:38 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:46 ` Doug Anderson [this message] 2021-06-24 13:46 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 4/6] iommu: Combine device strictness requests with the global default Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-22 2:03 ` Lu Baolu 2021-06-22 2:03 ` Lu Baolu 2021-06-22 16:53 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 16:53 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 17:01 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 17:01 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 2:55 ` Saravana Kannan 2021-06-22 2:55 ` Saravana Kannan via iommu 2021-06-22 16:40 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 16:40 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 19:50 ` Saravana Kannan 2021-06-22 19:50 ` Saravana Kannan via iommu 2021-06-22 11:49 ` Robin Murphy 2021-06-22 11:49 ` Robin Murphy 2021-06-22 18:45 ` Rajat Jain 2021-06-22 18:45 ` Rajat Jain via iommu 2021-06-22 19:35 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 19:35 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 5/6] iommu: Stop reaching into PCIe devices to decide strict vs. non-strict Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` [PATCH 6/6] mmc: sdhci-msm: Request non-strict IOMMU mode Douglas Anderson 2021-06-21 23:52 ` Douglas Anderson 2021-06-24 13:43 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 13:43 ` Greg KH 2021-06-24 14:00 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-24 14:00 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 11:35 ` [PATCH 0/6] iommu: Enable devices to request non-strict DMA, starting with QCom SD/MMC Robin Murphy 2021-06-22 11:35 ` Robin Murphy 2021-06-22 16:06 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 16:06 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 20:02 ` Rob Herring 2021-06-22 20:02 ` Rob Herring 2021-06-22 20:05 ` Saravana Kannan 2021-06-22 20:05 ` Saravana Kannan via iommu 2021-06-22 20:10 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 20:10 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-23 13:54 ` Rob Herring 2021-06-23 13:54 ` Rob Herring 2021-06-22 22:10 ` Robin Murphy 2021-06-22 22:10 ` Robin Murphy 2021-06-23 17:29 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-23 17:29 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-24 17:23 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-24 17:23 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 17:39 ` John Garry 2021-06-22 17:39 ` John Garry 2021-06-22 19:50 ` Doug Anderson 2021-06-22 19:50 ` Doug Anderson
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAD=FV=VQEM=Gtzrkd-s_ufzi_Y7b1GPCOVROftmjLDWiMEd0qA@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=dianders@chromium.org \ --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \ --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \ --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \ --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \ --cc=joro@8bytes.org \ --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=quic_c_gdjako@quicinc.com \ --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \ --cc=rafael@kernel.org \ --cc=rajatja@google.com \ --cc=robdclark@chromium.org \ --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \ --cc=saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org \ --cc=saravanak@google.com \ --cc=sonnyrao@chromium.org \ --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \ --cc=vbadigan@codeaurora.org \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.