Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] content: Add VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB to negotiate use of SWIOTLB bounce buffers

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 09:16:44AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 04:09 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:50:47AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > What's annoying is that this should work out of the box *already* with
> > > virtio-mmio and a `restricted-dma-pool` — for systems which aren't
> > > afflicted by UEFI/ACPI/PCI as their discovery mechanisms.
> > 
> > 
> > That specifically would be just a driver bugfix then?
> 
> I actually think it works out of the box and there isn't even a bug to
> fix. Haven't tested yet.
> 
> The sad part is that the system does it all automatically *if* it has
> CONFIG_DMA_RESTRICTED_POOL (e.g. Linux) and the driver never even
> notices that the dma_ops it's using are the swiotlb ops using the
> provided buffer.
> 
> Which is *kind* of nice... except that when on a guest OS which *isn't*
> Linux with CONFIG_DMA_RESTRICTED_POOL, the guest will just ignore the
> `restricted-dma-pool` node and try DMA to system memory anyway, which
> will fail.

I mean, it's easy to misconfigure Linux, this is why we love it ;) Why
is this such a concern?

> That's why my proposal adds the negotiated VIRTIO_F_SWIOTLB feature, so
> that the device side can refuse, if the guest *isn't* agreeing to use
> the bounce buffer in the situations where it must do so.


OTOH then setting this feature and if you make the device force it,
you are breaking guests restricted-dma-pool which worked previously, no?

-- 
MST