Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] KVM: arm64: allow the VM to select DEVICE_* and NORMAL_NC for IO memory

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	ankita@nvidia.com, maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
	aniketa@nvidia.com, cjia@nvidia.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
	targupta@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com, acurrid@nvidia.com,
	apopple@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, danw@nvidia.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] KVM: arm64: allow the VM to select DEVICE_* and NORMAL_NC for IO memory
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:20:45 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231012132045.GI3952@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231012123541.GB11824@willie-the-truck>

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:35:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> > Failures containability is a property of the platform
> > and is independent from the memory type used for MMIO
> > device memory mappings (ie DEVICE_nGnRE memory type is
> > even more problematic than NormalNC in terms of containability
> > since eg aborts triggered on loads cannot be made synchronous,
> > which make them harder to contain); this means that,
> > regardless of the combined stage1+stage2 mappings a
> > platform is safe if and only if device transactions cannot trigger
> > uncontained failures; reworded, the default KVM device
> > stage 2 memory attributes play no role in making device
> > assignment safer for a given platform and therefore can
> > be relaxed.
> > 
> > For all these reasons, relax the KVM stage 2 device
> > memory attributes from DEVICE_nGnRE to NormalNC.
> 
> The reasoning above suggests to me that this should probably just be
> Normal cacheable, as that is what actually allows the guest to control
> the attributes. So what is the rationale behind stopping at Normal-NC?

I agree it would be very nice if the all the memory in the guest could
just be cachable and the guest could select everything.

However, I think Lorenzo over stated the argument. The off-list
discussion was focused on NormalNC for MMIO only. Nobody raised the
idea that cachable was safe from uncontained errors for MMIO.

I'm looking through the conversations and I wouldn't jump to
concluding that "cachable MMIO" is safe from uncontained failures.

Catalin has already raised a number of conerns in the other patch
about making actual "designed to be cachable memory" into KVM
cachable.

Regards,
Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel