Re: [PATCH v4 07/15] arm64: Enforce bounce buffers for realm DMA

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> Within a realm guest it's not possible for a device emulated by the VMM
> to access arbitrary guest memory. So force the use of bounce buffers to
> ensure that the memory the emulated devices are accessing is in memory
> which is explicitly shared with the host.
> 
> This adds a call to swiotlb_update_mem_attributes() which calls
> set_memory_decrypted() to ensure the bounce buffer memory is shared with
> the host. For non-realm guests or hosts this is a no-op.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> ---
> v3: Simplify mem_init() by using a 'flags' variable.
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c |  2 ++
>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c    | 10 +++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c
> index 7ac5fc4a27d0..918db258cd4a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
>  #include <linux/jump_label.h>
>  #include <linux/memblock.h>
>  #include <linux/psci.h>
> +#include <linux/swiotlb.h>
> +
>  #include <asm/rsi.h>
>  
>  struct realm_config config;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> index 9b5ab6818f7f..1d595b63da71 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>  #include <asm/kvm_host.h>
>  #include <asm/memory.h>
>  #include <asm/numa.h>
> +#include <asm/rsi.h>
>  #include <asm/sections.h>
>  #include <asm/setup.h>
>  #include <linux/sizes.h>
> @@ -369,8 +370,14 @@ void __init bootmem_init(void)
>   */
>  void __init mem_init(void)
>  {
> +	unsigned int flags = SWIOTLB_VERBOSE;
>  	bool swiotlb = max_pfn > PFN_DOWN(arm64_dma_phys_limit);
>  
> +	if (is_realm_world()) {
> +		swiotlb = true;
> +		flags |= SWIOTLB_FORCE;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_BOUNCE_UNALIGNED_KMALLOC) && !swiotlb) {
>  		/*
>  		 * If no bouncing needed for ZONE_DMA, reduce the swiotlb
> @@ -382,7 +389,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
>  		swiotlb = true;
>  	}
>  
> -	swiotlb_init(swiotlb, SWIOTLB_VERBOSE);
> +	swiotlb_init(swiotlb, flags);
> +	swiotlb_update_mem_attributes();

Why do we have to call this so early? Certainly, we won't have probed
the hypercalls under pKVM yet and I think it would be a lot cleaner if
you could defer your RSI discovery too.

Looking forward to the possibility of device assignment in future, how
do you see DMA_BOUNCE_UNALIGNED_KMALLOC interacting with a decrypted
SWIOTLB buffer? I'm struggling to wrap my head around how to fix that
properly.

Will