Re: [PATCH 01/14] iommu: Implement IOMMU LU FLB callbacks

Samiullah Khawaja
2026-03-17T01:06:40Z

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 03:54:50PM -0700, Vipin Sharma wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:09:35PM +0000, Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
>> +config IOMMU_LIVEUPDATE
>> + bool "IOMMU live update state preservation support"
>> + depends on LIVEUPDATE && IOMMUFD
>> + help
>> + Enable support for preserving IOMMU state across a kexec live update.
>> +
>> + This allows devices managed by iommufd to maintain their DMA mappings
>> + during kexec base kernel update.
>> +
>> + If unsure, say N.
>> +
>
>Do we need a separate config? Can't we just use CONFIG_LIVEUPDATE?

We have a separate CONFIG here so that the phase 1/2 split for iommu
preservation doesn't break the vfio preservation. See following
discussion in the RFCv2:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/aYEpHBYxlQxhXrwl@google.com/
>
>> menuconfig IOMMU_SUPPORT
>> bool "IOMMU Hardware Support"
>> depends on MMU
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Makefile b/drivers/iommu/Makefile
>> index 0275821f4ef9..b3715c5a6b97 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/Makefile
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_ARMV7S) += io-pgtable-arm-v7s.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE) += io-pgtable-arm.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE_KUNIT_TEST) += io-pgtable-arm-selftests.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_DART) += io-pgtable-dart.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_LIVEUPDATE) += liveupdate.o
>
>It seems like there is a sorted order for CONFIG_IOMMU_* in the
>Makefile, lets keep it same if possible.

Will fix in the next revision.
>
>> +static void iommu_liveupdate_free_objs(u64 next, bool incoming)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_objs_ser *objs;
>> +
>> + while (next) {
>> + objs = __va(next);
>
>There is also call to phys_to_virt() in other functions in this patch.
>Should we use the same here to be consistent?

Agreed. I will fix this.
>
>> + next = objs->next_objs;
>> +
>> + if (!incoming)
>> + kho_unpreserve_free(objs);
>> + else
>> + folio_put(virt_to_folio(objs));
>> + }
>> +}
>
>Instead of passing boolean, and calling with different arguments, I
>think it will be simpler to just have two functions
>
>- iommu_liveupdate_unpreserve()
>- iommu_liveupdate_folio_put()

This is a helper function to free the serialized state without
duplicating multiple checks for various type of state (iommu,
iommu_domain and devices).

Do you think maybe I should add these two functions and make it call the
helper?
>
>> +
>> +static void iommu_liveupdate_flb_free(struct iommu_lu_flb_obj *obj)
>> +{
>> + if (obj->iommu_domains)
>> + iommu_liveupdate_free_objs(obj->ser->iommu_domains_phys, false);
>> +
>> + if (obj->devices)
>> + iommu_liveupdate_free_objs(obj->ser->devices_phys, false);
>> +
>> + if (obj->iommus)
>> + iommu_liveupdate_free_objs(obj->ser->iommus_phys, false);
>> +
>> + kho_unpreserve_free(obj->ser);
>> + kfree(obj);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int iommu_liveupdate_flb_preserve(struct liveupdate_flb_op_args *argp)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_obj *obj;
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_ser *ser;
>> + void *mem;
>> +
>> + obj = kzalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!obj)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + mutex_init(&obj->lock);
>> + mem = kho_alloc_preserve(sizeof(*ser));
>> + if (IS_ERR(mem))
>> + goto err_free;
>> +
>> + ser = mem;
>> + obj->ser = ser;
>> +
>> + mem = kho_alloc_preserve(PAGE_SIZE);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mem))
>> + goto err_free;
>> +
>> + obj->iommu_domains = mem;
>> + ser->iommu_domains_phys = virt_to_phys(obj->iommu_domains);
>> +
>> + mem = kho_alloc_preserve(PAGE_SIZE);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mem))
>> + goto err_free;
>> +
>> + obj->devices = mem;
>> + ser->devices_phys = virt_to_phys(obj->devices);
>> +
>> + mem = kho_alloc_preserve(PAGE_SIZE);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mem))
>> + goto err_free;
>> +
>> + obj->iommus = mem;
>> + ser->iommus_phys = virt_to_phys(obj->iommus);
>> +
>> + argp->obj = obj;
>> + argp->data = virt_to_phys(ser);
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +err_free:
>> + iommu_liveupdate_flb_free(obj);
>
>Generally, I have seen in the function goto will call corresponding
>error tags, and free corresponding allocations and all the one which
>happend before. It is easier to read code that way. I know you are
>combining the free call from iommu_liveupdate_flb_unpreserve() also.
>IMHO, code readability will be better this way.

I had that originally when I was writing this function, but it gets
really cluttered :(. Instead it is more clean without code duplication
using this one cleanup function here to free the state on error and also
when doing unpreserve. Please consider this a "destroy" function of obj
and it can be called from 2 places,

- Error during allocation of internal state.
- During unpreserve.
>
>> + return PTR_ERR(mem);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void iommu_liveupdate_flb_unpreserve(struct liveupdate_flb_op_args *argp)
>> +{
>> + iommu_liveupdate_flb_free(argp->obj);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void iommu_liveupdate_flb_finish(struct liveupdate_flb_op_args *argp)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_obj *obj = argp->obj;
>> +
>> + if (obj->iommu_domains)
>> + iommu_liveupdate_free_objs(obj->ser->iommu_domains_phys, true);
>
>Can there be the case where obj->iommu_domains is NULL but
>obj->ser->iommu_domains_phys is not? If that is not possible, I will
>just simplify the patch and unconditionally call
>iommu_liveupdate_free_objs()?

Are you suggesting that on flb_finish() the obj->iommu_domains should be
non-NULL as flb_retrieve() succeeded? If yes, then that is correct. I
will update this to call the free_objs() without checking
obj->iommu_domains. I will do same for other types.
>
>> +
>> +static int iommu_liveupdate_flb_retrieve(struct liveupdate_flb_op_args *argp)
>> +{
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_obj *obj;
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_ser *ser;
>> +
>> + obj = kzalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> + if (!obj)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>
>Is kzalloc() failure here recoverable whereas iommu_liveupdate_restore_objs()
>below is not? If it is not recoverable should there be a BUG_ON here?

Interesting... This should be recoverable as there is no corruption or
bad state. LUO will propagate this to caller and it should be handle
properly. I will make sure that this is handled in init.
>
>> +
>> + mutex_init(&obj->lock);
>> + BUG_ON(!kho_restore_folio(argp->data));
>> + ser = phys_to_virt(argp->data);
>> + obj->ser = ser;
>> +
>> + iommu_liveupdate_restore_objs(ser->iommu_domains_phys);
>> + obj->iommu_domains = phys_to_virt(ser->iommu_domains_phys);
>
>Can iommu_liveupdate_restore_obj() just return virtual address and we
>can simplify code to:
>
> obj->iommu_domains = iommu_liveupdate_restore_objs(ser->iommu_domains_phys);

Yes that is a good idea. I will change this.
>
>> +
>> + iommu_liveupdate_restore_objs(ser->devices_phys);
>> + obj->devices = phys_to_virt(ser->devices_phys);
>> +
>> + iommu_liveupdate_restore_objs(ser->iommus_phys);
>> + obj->iommus = phys_to_virt(ser->iommus_phys);
>> +
>> + argp->obj = obj;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> diff --git a/include/linux/iommu-lu.h b/include/linux/iommu-lu.h
>
>I will recommend to use full name and not short "lu". iommu-liveupdate.h
>seems more readable and not too long.

Agreed. I will change this.
>
>> +#define MAX_IOMMU_SERS ((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct iommus_ser)) / sizeof(struct iommu_ser))
>> +#define MAX_IOMMU_DOMAIN_SERS \
>> + ((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct iommu_domains_ser)) / sizeof(struct iommu_domain_ser))
>> +#define MAX_DEVICE_SERS ((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct devices_ser)) / sizeof(struct device_ser))
>
>This is per page limit, not whole serialization limit. May be we can
>name something like:
>
>- MAX_IOMMU_SERS_PER_PAGE, or
>- MAX_IOMMU_SERS_PAGE_CAPACITY

Agreed.
>
>> +
>> +struct iommu_lu_flb_obj {
>> + struct mutex lock;
>> + struct iommu_lu_flb_ser *ser;
>> +
>> + struct iommu_domains_ser *iommu_domains;
>> + struct iommus_ser *iommus;
>> + struct devices_ser *devices;
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>
>I think naming scheme used here is little hard to absorb when we have so
>many individual structs in this header file. Specifically, struct names like:
>
>- iommu_domains_ser vs iommu_domain_ser
>- iommus_ser vs iommu_ser
>- devices_ser vs device_ser
>- iommu_objs_ser vs iommu_obj_ser
>
>First three are showing container and its elements relation, however,
>last one doesn't have that relation but naming is same there.
>
>I will recommend to change the naming scheme of containers to something like:
>
> struct iommu_domain_ser_[hdr|header|table|arr] {};
> struct iommu_ser_hdr {}
> struct device_ser_hdr {}
>
>Individual element of container can be same.
>
>For objs, something like:
> iommu_objs_ser -> iommu_hdr_meta
>
>

Agreed. The singular vs plural for object vs aggregate is tricky. I will
rework these names. I am thinking something like following based on the
feedback on this patch,

struct iommu_ser_hdr; <= object hdr.
struct iommu_ser_arr_hdr <= array of objects hdr.
struct iommu_domain_ser <= contains a preserved domain.
struct iommu_domain_ser_arr <= array of domains.

Thanks,
Sami