RE: [PATCH v6 15/15] iommu/vt-d: Support reporting nesting capability info

Liu, Yi L
2020-08-17T07:06:22Z

Hi Eric,

> Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 8:01 PM
>
> Hi Yi,
>
> On 7/28/20 8:27 AM, Liu Yi L wrote:
> > This patch reports nesting info, and only supports the case where all
> > the physical iomms have the same CAP/ECAP MASKS.
> s/iomms/iommus

yep.

> >
> > Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> > CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
> > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > v2 -> v3:
> > *) remove cap/ecap_mask in iommu_nesting_info.
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 81
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > include/linux/intel-iommu.h | 16 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > index 88f4647..0835804 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > @@ -5660,12 +5660,16 @@ static inline bool iommu_pasid_support(void)
> > static inline bool nested_mode_support(void)
> > {
> > struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
> > - struct intel_iommu *iommu;
> > + struct intel_iommu *iommu, *prev = NULL;
> > bool ret = true;
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
> > - if (!sm_supported(iommu) || !ecap_nest(iommu->ecap)) {
> > + if (!prev)
> > + prev = iommu;
> > + if (!sm_supported(iommu) || !ecap_nest(iommu->ecap) ||
> > + (VTD_CAP_MASK & (iommu->cap ^ prev->cap)) ||
> > + (VTD_ECAP_MASK & (iommu->ecap ^ prev->ecap))) {
> > ret = false;
> > break;
> So this changes the behavior of DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING. Shouldn't it have a
> Fixes tag as well? And maybe add the capability getter in a separate patch?

yes, this changed the behavior. so it would be better to be a separate patch
and upstream along? how about your idea? @Lu, Baolu :-)

> > }
> > @@ -6081,6 +6085,78 @@ intel_iommu_domain_set_attr(struct iommu_domain
> *domain,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int intel_iommu_get_nesting_info(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > + struct iommu_nesting_info *info)
> > +{
> > + struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain);
> > + u64 cap = VTD_CAP_MASK, ecap = VTD_ECAP_MASK;
> > + struct device_domain_info *domain_info;
> > + struct iommu_nesting_info_vtd vtd;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned int size;
> > +

perhaps better to acquire the lock here. [1]

> > + if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED ||
> > + !(dmar_domain->flags & DOMAIN_FLAG_NESTING_MODE))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + if (!info)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + size = sizeof(struct iommu_nesting_info) +
> > + sizeof(struct iommu_nesting_info_vtd);
> > + /*
> > + * if provided buffer size is smaller than expected, should
> > + * return 0 and also the expected buffer size to caller.
> > + */
> > + if (info->argsz < size) {
> > + info->argsz = size;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&device_domain_lock, flags);
> > + /*
> > + * arbitrary select the first domain_info as all nesting
> > + * related capabilities should be consistent across iommu
> > + * units.
> > + */
> > + domain_info = list_first_entry(&dmar_domain->devices,
> > + struct device_domain_info, link);
> > + cap &= domain_info->iommu->cap;
> > + ecap &= domain_info->iommu->ecap;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device_domain_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + info->format = IOMMU_PASID_FORMAT_INTEL_VTD;
> > + info->features = IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_SYSWIDE_PASID |
> > + IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_BIND_PGTBL |
> > + IOMMU_NESTING_FEAT_CACHE_INVLD;
> > + info->addr_width = dmar_domain->gaw;
> > + info->pasid_bits = ilog2(intel_pasid_max_id);
> > + info->padding = 0;
> > + vtd.flags = 0;
> > + vtd.padding = 0;
> > + vtd.cap_reg = cap;
> > + vtd.ecap_reg = ecap;
> > +
> > + memcpy(info->data, &vtd, sizeof(vtd));
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int intel_iommu_domain_get_attr(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > + enum iommu_attr attr, void *data)
> > +{
> > + switch (attr) {
> > + case DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING:
> > + {
> > + struct iommu_nesting_info *info =
> > + (struct iommu_nesting_info *)data;
>
> don't you need to hold a device_domain_lock earlier to make sure domain
> attributes can't change behind your back (unmanaged type and nested mode)?

do you mean acquire lock at [1]?

Regards,
Yi Liu

> > +
> > + return intel_iommu_get_nesting_info(domain, info);
> > + }
> > + default:
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Check that the device does not live on an external facing PCI port that is
> > * marked as untrusted. Such devices should not be able to apply quirks and
> > @@ -6103,6 +6179,7 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
> > .domain_alloc = intel_iommu_domain_alloc,
> > .domain_free = intel_iommu_domain_free,
> > .domain_set_attr = intel_iommu_domain_set_attr,
> > + .domain_get_attr = intel_iommu_domain_get_attr,
> > .attach_dev = intel_iommu_attach_device,
> > .detach_dev = intel_iommu_detach_device,
> > .aux_attach_dev = intel_iommu_aux_attach_device,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/intel-iommu.h b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
> > index f98146b..5acf795 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
> > @@ -197,6 +197,22 @@
> > #define ecap_max_handle_mask(e) ((e >> 20) & 0xf)
> > #define ecap_sc_support(e) ((e >> 7) & 0x1) /* Snooping Control */
> >
> > +/* Nesting Support Capability Alignment */
> > +#define VTD_CAP_FL1GP BIT_ULL(56)
> > +#define VTD_CAP_FL5LP BIT_ULL(60)
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_PRS BIT_ULL(29)
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_ERS BIT_ULL(30)
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_SRS BIT_ULL(31)
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_EAFS BIT_ULL(34)
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_PASID BIT_ULL(40)
> > +
> > +/* Only capabilities marked in below MASKs are reported */
> > +#define VTD_CAP_MASK (VTD_CAP_FL1GP | VTD_CAP_FL5LP)
> > +
> > +#define VTD_ECAP_MASK (VTD_ECAP_PRS | VTD_ECAP_ERS | \
> > + VTD_ECAP_SRS | VTD_ECAP_EAFS | \
> > + VTD_ECAP_PASID)
> > +
> > /* Virtual command interface capability */
> > #define vccap_pasid(v) (((v) & DMA_VCS_PAS)) /* PASID allocation
> */
> >
> >
> Thanks
>
> Eric