Re: [Resend RFC PATCH V4 09/13] x86/Swiotlb/HV: Add Swiotlb bounce buffer remap function for HV IVM

Tianyu Lan
2021-07-21T10:42:57Z

Thanks for review.

On 7/20/2021 9:54 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Please split the swiotlb changes into a separate patch from the
> consumer.

OK. Will update.

>
>> }
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * hv_map_memory - map memory to extra space in the AMD SEV-SNP Isolation VM.
>> + */
>> +unsigned long hv_map_memory(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long *pfns = kcalloc(size / HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE,
>> + sizeof(unsigned long),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + unsigned long vaddr;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!pfns)
>> + return (unsigned long)NULL;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < size / HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE; i++)
>> + pfns[i] = virt_to_hvpfn((void *)addr + i * HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE) +
>> + (ms_hyperv.shared_gpa_boundary >> HV_HYP_PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +
>> + vaddr = (unsigned long)vmap_pfn(pfns, size / HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE,
>> + PAGE_KERNEL_IO);
>> + kfree(pfns);
>> +
>> + return vaddr;
>
> This seems to miss a 'select VMAP_PFN'.

VMAP_PFN has been selected in the previous patch "RFC PATCH V4 08/13]
HV/Vmbus: Initialize VMbus ring buffer for Isolation VM"

> But more importantly I don't
> think this actually works. Various DMA APIs do expect a struct page
> backing, so how is this going to work with say dma_mmap_attrs or
> dma_get_sgtable_attrs?

dma_mmap_attrs() and dma_get_sgtable_attrs() get input virtual address
belonging to backing memory with struct page and returns bounce buffer
dma physical address which is below shared_gpa_boundary(vTOM) and passed
to Hyper-V via vmbus protocol.

The new map virtual address is only to access bounce buffer in swiotlb
code and will not be used other places. It's stored in the mem->vstart.
So the new API set_memory_decrypted_map() in this series is only called
in the swiotlb code. Other platforms may replace set_memory_decrypted()
with set_memory_decrypted_map() as requested.

>
>> +static unsigned long __map_memory(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>> +{
>> + if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
>> + return hv_map_memory(addr, size);
>> +
>> + return addr;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __unmap_memory(unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> + if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
>> + hv_unmap_memory(addr);
>> +}
>> +
>> +unsigned long set_memory_decrypted_map(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>> +{
>> + if (__set_memory_enc_dec(addr, size / PAGE_SIZE, false))
>> + return (unsigned long)NULL;
>> +
>> + return __map_memory(addr, size);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int set_memory_encrypted_unmap(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>> +{
>> + __unmap_memory(addr);
>> + return __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, size / PAGE_SIZE, true);
>> +}
>
> Why this obsfucation into all kinds of strange helpers? Also I think
> we want an ops vectors (or alternative calls) instead of the random
> if checks here.

Yes, agree and will add ops for different platforms to map/unmap memory.

>
>> + * @vstart: The virtual start address of the swiotlb memory pool. The swiotlb
>> + * memory pool may be remapped in the memory encrypted case and store
>
> Normall we'd call this vaddr or cpu_addr.

OK. Will update.

>
>> - set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)vaddr, bytes >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> - memset(vaddr, 0, bytes);
>> + mem->vstart = (void *)set_memory_decrypted_map((unsigned long)vaddr, bytes);
>
> Please always pass kernel virtual addresses as pointers.
>
> And I think these APIs might need better names, e.g.
>
> arch_dma_map_decrypted and arch_dma_unmap_decrypted.
>
> Also these will need fallback versions for non-x86 architectures that
> currently use memory encryption.

Sure. Will update in the next version.