All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Cc: "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"christian.koenig@amd.com" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:36:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191128153646.GA29430@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR05MB6141B6D7E28A146EBF9CE79FA1470@MN2PR05MB6141.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:02:16AM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > 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..
> >
> IIRC the justification for it is debugging. Drivers that don't do
> syncing correctly or have incorrect assumptions of initialization of DMA
> memory will not work properly when SWIOTLB is forced. We recently found
> a vmw_pvscsi device flaw that way...

Ok. I guess debugging is reasonable.  Although that means I need
to repsin this quite a bit as I now need a callout to dma_direct.
I'll respin it in the next days.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Cc: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
	"thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"christian.koenig@amd.com" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:36:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191128153646.GA29430@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR05MB6141B6D7E28A146EBF9CE79FA1470@MN2PR05MB6141.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:02:16AM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > 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..
> >
> IIRC the justification for it is debugging. Drivers that don't do
> syncing correctly or have incorrect assumptions of initialization of DMA
> memory will not work properly when SWIOTLB is forced. We recently found
> a vmw_pvscsi device flaw that way...

Ok. I guess debugging is reasonable.  Although that means I need
to repsin this quite a bit as I now need a callout to dma_direct.
I'll respin it in the next days.


  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-28 15:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-27 14:40 make dma_addressing_limited work for memory encryption setups Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 14:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 14:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: move dma_addressing_limited out of line Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 14:40   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 17:13   ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-27 17:13     ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-27 14:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 14:40   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 18:22   ` Thomas Hellstrom via iommu
2019-11-27 18:22     ` Thomas Hellstrom
2019-11-28  7:51     ` hch
2019-11-28  7:51       ` hch
2019-11-28  8:02       ` Thomas Hellstrom via iommu
2019-11-28  8:02         ` Thomas Hellstrom
2019-11-28 15:36         ` hch [this message]
2019-11-28 15:36           ` hch
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-12-04 13:03 make dma_addressing_limited work for memory encryption setups v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-12-04 13:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] dma-mapping: force unencryped devices are always addressing limited Christoph Hellwig
2019-12-04 13:03   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-12-06 14:10   ` Thomas Hellstrom via iommu
2019-12-06 14:10     ` Thomas Hellstrom

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=20191128153646.GA29430@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=thellstrom@vmware.com \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    /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: link
Be 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.