Re: [PATCH] iommu: Add support to filter non-strict/lazy mode based on device names

From: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Add support to filter non-strict/lazy mode based on device names
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:47:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d9b1f1b614057d87279c26e13cbbb1f5@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e3e4da33-a44f-0a07-9e2e-0f806875ab0b@arm.com>

On 2020-08-26 17:07, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-08-25 16:42, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> Currently the non-strict or lazy mode of TLB invalidation can only be 
>> set
>> for all or no domains. This works well for development platforms where
>> setting to non-strict/lazy mode is fine for performance reasons but on
>> production devices, we need a more fine grained control to allow only
>> certain peripherals to support this mode where we can be sure that it 
>> is
>> safe. So add support to filter non-strict/lazy mode based on the 
>> device
>> names that are passed via cmdline parameter "iommu.nonstrict_device".
> 
> There seems to be considerable overlap here with both the existing
> patches for per-device default domain control [1], and the broader
> ongoing development on how to define, evaluate and handle "trusted"
> vs. "untrusted" devices (e.g. [2],[3]). I'd rather see work done to
> make sure those integrate properly together and work well for
> everyone's purposes, than add more disjoint mechanisms that only
> address small pieces of the overall issue.
> 
> Robin.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200824051726.7xaJRTTszJuzdFWGJ8YNsshCtfNR0BNeMrlILAyqt_0@z/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200630044943.3425049-1-rajatja@google.com/
> [3]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20200626002710.110200-2-rajatja@google.com/
> 

Thanks for the links, [1] definitely sounds interesting, I was under the 
impression
that changing such via sysfs is late, but seems like other Sai has got 
it working
for the default domain type. So we can extend that and add a strict 
attribute as well,
we should be definitely OK with system booting with default strict mode 
for all
peripherals as long as we have an option to change that later, Doug?

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

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