From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f48.google.com (mail-qv1-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B69191A681D for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 22:55:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777071318; cv=none; b=FcahQ99TWrAwZRpmNXk7oX7e+BU0wcq7iuuw7txo9ncDHhqJH/LAChKmCjX/5Mq3FFk4A/DNHJJ6YFpcOEaX9igDSlH6EPq0rFNqOuEdVgi+bjpduWbXCEmqKGqCqR9tkDkC6i3c/Hqw1/YrIcM0BlK4Oa7hJUo64cbGBX2kLto= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777071318; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cV0Gxz7W/U+/DxuSBdghEEEy6w6inDWrgGPifnEQWHc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cfys4mLP6MndIKXNenf3BeMtZM/li6++xfzML9kHkVM+HS4cfZP4inmYbeY8AWWgOTUPkRs5YAkwZlptuYZ3iJVJi3vGRsfXDqF4AdneBVNNUPkvB/Vh+X5TvzyEMrgRcvOuU1jghV7hZO7/jGKTNcbp5tGxbDY92+Ppxw2Ii3A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ziepe.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b=j2s6gtMi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.48 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="j2s6gtMi" Received: by mail-qv1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-899a5db525cso65839386d6.3 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; t=1777071316; x=1777676116; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Dw33gELuGUNq59I/OY2f7G4Yqpl4DyjVQaY1TU/E47I=; b=j2s6gtMidN7T236PMkGx+W4FXYwRa6eIECKjvlTJY82WwyHmZRaKuNaSDUmc+WNFsV cekEdt/9KprVLPLDQCiMzVnHKVWKWH4HsUXvHrQb7pkVSv4VbhVNR6p7tPI+Z8v1zLbZ jolb9ZsQ5nODJc6zqd0LgQvEAyWxZ8LB79i8M/UPA1VDFpMJDkzr8fsDayLx4sl+iI2i YSNU/eAQhCfGU9CEGyvJLDpOjn2t3NjXsX/PCdJKy5Z1xwmULACsg/Zs/q+meNJcYcfw Ic3RKOmv+Ho+7op0txrn/ntUQvTXqgdw6cwXfVzE8Y8v4vBpebI+RE9J6+1fF+yrYVj+ eL8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1777071316; x=1777676116; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Dw33gELuGUNq59I/OY2f7G4Yqpl4DyjVQaY1TU/E47I=; b=liuypKvsNhFaANE1eXqq+65yGnEp9RBHBLS8whdmhZVrBXN5tdesnaqKVFggCSCwOC EKL3hEm0tUTfXqtB/i8CSCQT/j4Jow2fj3i5HNz6b/Wcgq4VlTlcgKAOe85Uc2tnX6qb NMw4jXJuGuzmqjoZ76BQ7XQXn2un6jXeTC8nVV1k3XVkq3BfJbmkjvJYp0gvkHnFS9ta cZGcdSzhz2VLOX4HGp5V7I+l3GGnuaItzblKWfY68lCz5FVruEjGE9lkY+MVVvldReXu kSTCSH3zhBarQxGrkdISY8BLprG5q2+E67xqTZojKHkFyYCw+lNHB6/JT2ZlV/guk9ai 1HKg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/FiJ/IUhPzXCPxZ82V+IKlCwWI9gb8/cSLxJF3UwmpLLmxPFwxqbJhskeBFb3prixBusy3wwqqX+qe@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxWfyvaBjVnZUJba91YzeMOnPZm+bTP9zljvHRFVYRvAWo23MHA btYNuH/IxYgAS8TD2OqOtbgwbaPBvG+9xgR0m5iv8ag4W+OoEzPZh4GcljjSeCgD2nU= X-Gm-Gg: AeBDietCsmdMeQAvY5Zc8lLXL7WE3Z3dqrjwR9EnsBh0TZSpWRmH3Qzq5fCgnRyYbBH sGVH5V2rZVYivv8iuYqc8mBoRdeOJhGsu3BUZ3KrVlTYJI2Fg4uGd5pdbODdw6Dvq5+DZu/ZYD9 6KQ8JORwtF4k1YFS8daT0YZa18DagpwVI8xG/0Vb6OraMlpv2nJCBsxzfhOLqdBz0UqNU/yR9Em 08ebwaUDC0cyS5IUnnyRParyrMU44njBdMFki9IwcO4hiwS8OK584WKqq9/6PlxdrPvUhJNXotB zudHyRkQixAqTd6cbZnIb1r1/RJ3SvMAxRy/TnhxfQjlzfr25Zk1S9S8Kg1HqDrHbTMpCXDOVFX pxsA1wvtnzZeZEmxby+SANBJptartAMW+3Sl3E6AGQ6Vru8+NntvvgGiz9vOqgrADwL1lk1PllP Co1qJg4Yu4uuzqBrN06Pl8jhEn7aLMybKDja0VoQ37gzLcY6BM+6oCKW154lONUc3cRsx2hbKWs izKI1Owz3xTKLxG X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5f0e:0:b0:8b2:2474:8f3a with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-8b224749034mr37604816d6.25.1777071315667; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ziepe.ca (crbknf0213w-47-54-130-67.pppoe-dynamic.high-speed.nl.bellaliant.net. [47.54.130.67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-8b02ac78513sm198480506d6.19.2026.04.24.15.55.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Apr 2026 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by wakko with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1wGPQY-00000004wIG-2XfJ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:55:14 -0300 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:55:14 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: Jiri Pirko , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com, Brian.Starkey@arm.com, jstultz@google.com, tjmercier@google.com, christian.koenig@amd.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, leon@kernel.org, sean.anderson@linux.dev, ptesarik@suse.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, steven.price@arm.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, john.allen@amd.com, ashish.kalra@amd.com, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dma-mapping: introduce DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED for shared memory Message-ID: <20260424225514.GE804026@ziepe.ca> References: <20260325192352.437608-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20260325192352.437608-2-jiri@resnulli.us> <4qdizkkoeke3cvkcf35upa7p7ick6s654eqlrizmi7ozkw5eze@tnpk2e34xgwl> <20260421121004.GA3611611@ziepe.ca> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 02:48:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Jason Gunthorpe writes: > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 01:53:31PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >> You reach there when is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev) is true and > >> >> DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED is set. What am I missing? > >> >> > >> > > >> >So a swiotlb_force_bounce will not use swiotlb bouncing if > >> >DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED is set ? > >> > >> Correct. Bouncing does not make sense in this case, as shared memory is > >> already being mapped. > > > > It is a little bit mangled, there are many reasons force_swiotlb can > > be set, but we loose them as it flows through - swiotlb_init() > > just has a simple SWIOTLB_FORCE > > > > Ideally DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED would skip swiotlb only if it is being > > selected for CC reasons. For instance if you have the swiotlb force > > command line parameter I would still expect it bounce shared memory. > > > > Arguably I think this arch flow is misdesigned, the > > is_swiotlb_force_bounce() should not be used for CC. dma_capable() is > > the correct API to check if the device can DMA to the presented > > address, and it will trigger swiotlb_map() just the same without > > creating this gap. > > > > Jason > > Something like this? Yeah that reads pretty sanely. > static inline dma_addr_t dma_direct_map_phys(struct device *dev, > phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir, > unsigned long attrs, bool flush) > { > dma_addr_t dma_addr; > > if (is_swiotlb_force_bounce(dev)) { > if (attrs & (DMA_ATTR_MMIO | DMA_ATTR_REQUIRE_COHERENT)) > return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR; > > return swiotlb_map(dev, phys, size, dir, attrs); > } > > if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_MMIO) { > dma_addr = phys; > if (unlikely(!dma_capable(dev, dma_addr, size, false, attrs))) > goto err_overflow; > goto dma_mapped; I suspect P2P is probably broken on CC because this doesn't make sense.. This should flow into the phys_to_dma_unencrypted/phys_to_dma_encrypted block as well AFAICT, it shouldn't just assign phys. Assigning phys to dma on a CC system is always wrong, right? It is is more like /* To be updated, callers should specify MMIO | CC_SHARED instead of * implying it. */ if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_MMIO) attrs |= DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED; if (attrs & DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED) { dma_addr = phys_to_dma_unencrypted(dev, phys); } else { dma_addr = phys_to_dma_encrypted(dev, phys); } if (!dma_capable()) { if (attrs & (DMA_ATTR_MMIO | DMA_ATTR_REQUIRE_COHERENT) fail } > and dma_capable() now does > static inline bool dma_capable(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size, > bool is_ram, unsigned long attrs) > { > .... > > /* > * if phys addr attribute is encrypted but the > * device is forcing an encrypted dma addr > */ > if (!(attrs & DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED) && force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) > return false; Yeah And with the above little edits it works for MMIO now too. Jason