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=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 6827EC433E0 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4986A20702 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731434AbgGAOMr (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:12:47 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:51645 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730307AbgGAOMq (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:12:46 -0400 IronPort-SDR: ySQn0iArGoC10y4HqwjKHxkaj2vdgM82PMi3100zJ5gRPT+A/z5K++D928OG2HB8HAaELJmSeK R5/HDiab2f2Q== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9668"; a="126198572" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,300,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="126198572" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Jul 2020 07:12:45 -0700 IronPort-SDR: tw+TjEMnr6PSKKEIZGIwlRnMnY+I1IPteQ9YJ/b+xboSW0wpxSK+AXL5tZVvEIqLGEWC1jcv7/ mq9WRPL4QW+w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,300,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="455118375" Received: from jacob-builder.jf.intel.com (HELO jacob-builder) ([10.7.199.155]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2020 07:12:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:19:20 -0700 From: Jacob Pan To: Lu Baolu Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, LKML , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Yi Liu , "Tian, Kevin" , Raj Ashok , Eric Auger , jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] iommu/vt-d: Warn on out-of-range invalidation address Message-ID: <20200701071920.0a08f404@jacob-builder> In-Reply-To: References: <1592926996-47914-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1592926996-47914-7-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <20200630103459.6c99c961@jacob-builder> Organization: OTC X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:45:40 +0800 Lu Baolu wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > On 7/1/20 1:34 AM, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:10:43 +0800 > > Lu Baolu wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2020/6/23 23:43, Jacob Pan wrote: > >>> For guest requested IOTLB invalidation, address and mask are > >>> provided as part of the invalidation data. VT-d HW silently > >>> ignores any address bits below the mask. SW shall also allow such > >>> case but give warning if address does not align with the mask. > >>> This patch relax the fault handling from error to warning and > >>> proceed with invalidation request with the given mask. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan > >>> --- > >>> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 7 +++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > >>> b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c index 5ea5732d5ec4..50fc62413a35 > >>> 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > >>> @@ -5439,13 +5439,12 @@ intel_iommu_sva_invalidate(struct > >>> iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev, > >>> switch (BIT(cache_type)) { > >>> case IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_IOTLB: > >>> + /* HW will ignore LSB bits based on > >>> address mask */ if (inv_info->granularity == IOMMU_INV_GRANU_ADDR > >>> && size && > >>> (inv_info->addr_info.addr & > >>> ((BIT(VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + size)) - 1))) { > >>> - pr_err_ratelimited("Address out > >>> of range, 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > >>> - > >>> inv_info->addr_info.addr, size); > >>> - ret = -ERANGE; > >>> - goto out_unlock; > >>> + WARN_ONCE(1, "Address out of > >>> range, 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > >>> + > >>> inv_info->addr_info.addr, size); > >> I don't think WARN_ONCE() is suitable here. It makes users think > >> it's a kernel bug. How about pr_warn_ratelimited()? > >> > > I think pr_warn_ratelimited might still be too chatty. There is no > > functional issues, we just don't to silently ignore it. Perhaps just > > say: > > WARN_ONCE(1, "User provided address not page aligned, alignment > > forced") ? > > > > WARN() is normally used for reporting a kernel bug. It dumps kernel > trace. And the users will report bug through bugzilla.kernel.org. > > In this case, it's actually an unexpected user input, we shouldn't > treat it as a kernel bug and pr_err_ratelimited() is enough? > Sounds good. I will leave it. Thanks, Jacob > Best regards, > baolu [Jacob Pan]