Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] iommu: Add virtio-iommu driver

[Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>]

On 12/10/2018 17:35, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> +		list_del(&req->list);
>> +		kfree(req);
> 
> So with DEBUG set, this will actually free memory that device still
> DMA's into. Hardly pretty. I think you want to mark device broken,
> queue the request and then wait for device to be reset.

Ok, let's remove DEBUG for the moment

>> +static int viommu_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *parent_dev = vdev->dev.parent;
>> +	struct viommu_dev *viommu = NULL;
>> +	struct device *dev = &vdev->dev;
>> +	u64 input_start = 0;
>> +	u64 input_end = -1UL;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (!virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
>> +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> I'm a bit confused about what will happen if this device
> happens to be behind an iommu itself.
>
> If we can't handle that, should we clear PLATFORM_IOMMU
> e.g. like the balloon does?

I think the DMA API can handle this device doing DMA through another
IOMMU. I haven't tested this case because it is very unusual (IOMMUs
themselves generally access the physical address space) but I don't see
anything preventing it.

What we can't handle is a device performing DMA through two
daisy-chained IOMMUs, but clearing PLATFORM_IOMMU on the first one
wouldn't make things work in that case, we'd need some core changes.

>> +struct virtio_iommu_config {
>> +	/* Supported page sizes */
>> +	__u64					page_size_mask;
>> +	/* Supported IOVA range */
>> +	struct virtio_iommu_range {
> 
> I'd rather we moved the definition outside even though gcc allows it -
> some old userspace compilers might not.
> 
>> +		__u64				start;
>> +		__u64				end;
>> +	} input_range;
>> +	/* Max domain ID size */
>> +	__u8					domain_bits;
> 
> Let's add explicit padding here as well?

Ok

Thanks,
Jean