Re: [PATCH v4 04/13] dma: swiotlb: track pool encryption state and honor DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 02:27:14PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:

> > +		/*
> > +		 * if platform supports memory encryption,
> > +		 * restricted mem pool is decrypted by default
> > +		 */
> > +		if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT)) {
> > +			mem->unencrypted = true;
> > +			set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)phys_to_virt(rmem->base),
> > +					     rmem->size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +		} else {
> > +			mem->unencrypted = false;
> > +		}
>
> This breaks pKVM as it doesn’t set CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT, so all virtio
> traffic now fails.

How will pKVM signal what kind of memory the DMA needs then?

Does it use set_memory_decrypted()? How can it use
set_memory_decrypted() without offering CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT ?

> Also, by design, some drivers are clueless about bouncing, so

Oh? What does this mean? We take quite a dim view of drivers mis-using
the DMA API..

> I believe that the pool should have a way to control it’s property
> (encrypted or decrypted) and that takes priority over whatever
> attributes comes from allocation.

We should get here because dma_capable() fails, and then swiotlb needs
to return something that makes dma_capable() succeed. Yes, it should
return details about the thing it decided, but it shouldn't have been
pre-created with some idea how to make dma_capable() work.

If dma_capable() can fail, then swiotlb should know exactly what to do
to fix it.

If pkvm wants to use the hacky scheme where you force a swiotlb pool
configuration during arch init with force swiotlb that's a somewhat
different flow and, sure the forced pool should force do whatever it
is forced to.

But lets try to keep them seperated in the discussion..

> And that brings us to the same point whether it’s better to return
> the memory along with it’s state or we pass the requested state.
> I think for other cases it’s fine for the device/DMA-API to dictate
> the attrs, but not in restricted-dma case, the firmware just knows better.

The memory type must be returned back at some level so downstream
things can do the right transformation of the phys_addr_t.

One of the aspirational CC things that should work is a T=1 device
tries to DMA from a decrypted page, finds the address is above the dma
limit of the device, so it bounces it with SWIOTLB to an encrypted low
address page and then the DMA API internal flow switiches from working
with decrypted to encrypted phys_addr_t.

If we can make that work then maybe the flows are designed correctly.

Jason