From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D18CC63777 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D6A20705 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Oig+K37a" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 98D6A20705 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195D6872A7; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6eL5DgO+ijfV; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6921287260; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A9CC0859; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59870C0052 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3149B22EC9 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIhh5B3YdR2a for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 419E92309D for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:03:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606759391; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IjO539zdN8HjiYFMjOQqvVcvUesK6209o4vdNV3SREM=; b=Oig+K37aA3eiKQtd69nveE8XlR0zM+xb0XXupDj2EiFIctKZSFjDhNK/4CJyJ8wEfzD0EL jlPoD+bureHT5LT2XZWng6qYg8dfUCDf+kX+Ni/jYl9GPxXp3Y6MJBjePQKjODc/7sD3dq nIYm8eQk8ehwjRX2QEZgCZsWhXUQBvo= Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com (mail-qt1-f199.google.com [209.85.160.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-371-0gayhna7ODWzv_6pxG_h-Q-1; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:03:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 0gayhna7ODWzv_6pxG_h-Q-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id v18so8876290qta.22 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=IjO539zdN8HjiYFMjOQqvVcvUesK6209o4vdNV3SREM=; b=Vq3qG0AVJsJaIq9jhqWkYQ1p9wlfGObQBPTIAMF1Uc9OYRKHctqS9qSmY96LsUcK7H Jd7m7jDX56aSNC+cgFR1KQdows8Hd/uxJku1Y4IqBozyduSv+6pyu1YmPd0baDWscnRz rRn8yCbGe/UO6ix5Nsl1f/BcgWll+LhdKnSZtRW2YrlAGhheoGvT3iso4a4+C27yceGd apFrTij6Ht8BFG7bYbiCM0WTxhB1Q283bxRgnZVlhFT4rAzTw1n6V83TZUEcdDkpifKR oOEnQSY1jrhwpTBu3upH2JVNClHjdOA9/F5gPPGHrpJp3HhpVEssHIqwOQ8gJnczPzcH R6HA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531iRehILTODMg9lG1oQOG8qXB4HmfTs2N9oTHJ3/WYAdogRS4dl Mm2qCoHUC4N6AzQ0T+QMl6KNN8WtJpJpQbICj+a7AmJTXpljbbLD9z8NCNDFZcfBXqpQlnNbW0P lBMspgTDg+ARyUMh7DUZvnTww0UOsmw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7659:: with SMTP id i25mr22916976qtr.78.1606759389272; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRJvxAhbTS9KL6Nff1yDaG0kUy/6s8MStlHfEYSeeNfjb5Uc4rTqChF+46Aq9yfnZLLoHrGQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7659:: with SMTP id i25mr22916958qtr.78.1606759389036; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip98-179-76-75.ph.ph.cox.net. [98.179.76.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o8sm16308773qtm.9.2020.11.30.10.03.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:03:08 -0800 (PST) References: <87h7pd6v2k.fsf@redhat.com> <87a6v3hkd9.fsf@jsnitsel.users.ipa.redhat.com> <72a7b338-2481-8c0a-5641-6f448557f6ee@linux.intel.com> <87r1oaka46.fsf@redhat.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.10; emacs 27.1 From: Jerry Snitselaar To: Lu Baolu Subject: Re: Question about domain_init (v5.3-v5.7) In-reply-to: <87r1oaka46.fsf@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:03:06 -0700 Message-ID: <87o8jek9id.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=jsnitsel@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Cc: stable@kernel.vger.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "iommu" Jerry Snitselaar @ 2020-11-30 10:50 MST: > Lu Baolu @ 2020-11-26 19:12 MST: > >> Hi Jerry, >> >> On 11/27/20 5:35 AM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>> Lu Baolu @ 2020-11-26 04:01 MST: >>> >>>> Hi Jerry, >>>> >>>> On 2020/11/26 4:27, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>>>> Is there a reason we check the requested guest address width against >>>>> the >>>>> iommu's mgaw, instead of the agaw that we already know for the iommu? >>>>> I've run into a case with a new system where the mgaw reported is 57, >>>>> but if they set PAE to 46 instead of 52 in the bios, then sagaw reports >>>>> the highest supported agaw is 48 and the domain_init code fails here. In >>>> >>>> Isn't this a platform bug? If it's too late to fix it in the BIOS, you >>>> maybe have to add a platform specific quirk to set mgaw to the highest >>>> supported agaw? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> baolu >>> Is there somewhere you can point me to that discusses how they >>> should be >>> setting the mgaw? I misunderstood when I previously asked you about >>> whether the mgaw could be a value that was greater than any of sagaw. >>> If it is a bios issue, then they should fix it there. >> >> MGAW indicates the max gpa width supported by 2nd translation. The VT-d >> spec requires that this value must be at least equal to the host >> physical addressibility. According to this, BIOS is good, right? >> >> For this failure case, domain_init() just wants to find a suitable agaw >> for the private domain. I think it makes sense to check against >> iommu->agaw instead of cap_mgaw. >> >> Best regards, >> baolu >> > > From this bit in the spec about MGAW: > > Guest addressability for a given DMA request is limited to the > minimum of the value reported through this field and the adjusted > guest address width of the corresponding page-table structure. > (Adjusted guest address widths supported by hardware are reported > through the SAGAW field). > > That does suggest it should be adjusted down to the sagaw value in this case, yes? > Just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. Or I guess that is really talking about if you had an mgaw lower than the the sagaw, the dma request would be limited to that lower mgaw value. > >>> >>>> >>>>> other places like prepare_domain_attach_device, the dmar domain agaw >>>>> gets adjusted down to the iommu agaw. The agaw of the iommu gets >>>>> determined based off what is reported for sagaw. I'm wondering if it >>>>> can't instead do: >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> index 6ca5c92ef2e5..a8e41ec36d9e 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>>> @@ -1862,8 +1862,8 @@ static int domain_init(struct dmar_domain *domain, struct intel_iommu *iommu, >>>>> domain_reserve_special_ranges(domain); >>>>> /* calculate AGAW */ >>>>> - if (guest_width > cap_mgaw(iommu->cap)) >>>>> - guest_width = cap_mgaw(iommu->cap); >>>>> + if (guest_width > agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw)) >>>>> + guest_width = agaw_to_width(iommu->agaw); >>>>> domain->gaw = guest_width; >>>>> adjust_width = guestwidth_to_adjustwidth(guest_width); >>>>> agaw = width_to_agaw(adjust_width); >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.27.0 >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? With the former code the ehci device for the ilo fails when >>>>> trying to get a private domain. >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jerry >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu