Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] swiotlb: Remove pointless stride adjustment for allocations >= PAGE_SIZE

Petr Tesařík
2024-03-04T11:01:06Z

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 03:31:34 +0000
Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com> wrote:

> From: Petr Tesařík <petr@tesarici.cz> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 10:42 AM
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:54:06 +0000
> > Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2024-03-01 5:08 pm, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:39:27 +0100
> > > > Petr Tesařík <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:47:56 +0100
> > > >> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 03:44:11PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > > >>>> Any thoughts on how that historical behavior should apply if
> > > >>>> the DMA min_align_mask is non-zero, or the alloc_align_mask
> > > >>>> parameter to swiotbl_tbl_map_single() is non-zero? As currently
> > > >>>> used, alloc_align_mask is page aligned if the IOMMU granule is
> > > >>>>> = PAGE_SIZE. But a non-zero min_align_mask could mandate
> > > >>>> returning a buffer that is not page aligned. Perhaps do the
> > > >>>> historical behavior only if alloc_align_mask and min_align_mask
> > > >>>> are both zero?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think the driver setting min_align_mask is a clear indicator
> > > >>> that the driver requested a specific alignment and the defaults
> > > >>> don't apply. For swiotbl_tbl_map_single as used by dma-iommu
> > > >>> I'd have to tak a closer look at how it is used.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not sure it helps in this discussion, but let me dive into a bit
> > > >> of ancient history to understand how we ended up here.
> > > >>
> > > >> IIRC this behaviour was originally motivated by limitations of PC AT
> > > >> hardware. Intel 8237 is a 16-bit DMA controller. To make it somehow
> > > >> usable with addresses up to 16MB (yeah, the infamous DMA zone), IBM
> > > >> added a page register, but it was on a separate chip and it did not
> > > >> increment when the 8237 address rolled over back to zero. Effectively,
> > > >> the page register selected a 64K-aligned window of 64K buffers.
> > > >> Consequently, DMA buffers could not cross a 64K physical boundary.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks to how the buddy allocator works, the 64K-boundary constraint
> > > >> was satisfied by allocation size, and drivers took advantage of it when
> > > >> allocating device buffers. IMO software bounce buffers simply followed
> > > >> the same logic that worked for buffers allocated by the buddy allocator.
> > > >>
> > > >> OTOH min_align_mask was motivated by NVME which prescribes the value of
> > > >> a certain number of low bits in the DMA address (for simplicity assumed
> > > >> to be identical with the same bits in the physical address).
> > > >>
> > > >> The only pre-existing user of alloc_align_mask is x86 IOMMU code, and
> > > >> IIUC it is used to guarantee that unaligned transactions do not share
> > > >> the IOMMU granule with another device. This whole thing is weird,
> > > >> because swiotlb_tbl_map_single() is called like this:
> > > >>
> > > >> aligned_size = iova_align(iovad, size);
> > > >> phys = swiotlb_tbl_map_single(dev, phys, size, aligned_size,
> > > >> iova_mask(iovad), dir, attrs);
> > > >>
> > > >> Here:
> > > >>
> > > >> * alloc_size = iova_align(iovad, size)
> > > >> * alloc_align_mask = iova_mask(iovad)
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, iova_align() rounds up its argument to a multiple of iova granule
> > > >> and iova_mask() is simply "granule - 1". This works, because granule
> > > >> size must be a power of 2, and I assume it must also be >= PAGE_SIZE.
> > > >>
> > > >> In that case, the alloc_align_mask argument is not even needed if you
> > > >> adjust the code to match documentation---the resulting buffer will be
> > > >> aligned to a granule boundary by virtue of having a size that is a
> > > >> multiple of the granule size.
> > > >>
> > > >> To sum it up:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. min_align_mask is by far the most important constraint. Devices will
> > > >> simply stop working if it is not met.
> > > >> 2. Alignment to the smallest PAGE_SIZE order which is greater than or
> > > >> equal to the requested size has been documented, and some drivers
> > > >> may rely on it.
> > > >> 3. alloc_align_mask is a misguided fix for a bug in the above.
> > > >>
> > > >> Correct me if anything of the above is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I thought about it some more, and I believe I know what should happen
> > > > if the first two constraints appear to be mutually exclusive.
> > > >
> > > > First, the alignment based on size does not guarantee that the resulting
> > > > physical address is aligned. In fact, the lowest IO_TLB_SHIFT bits must
> > > > be always identical to the original buffer address.
> > > >
> > > > Let's take an example request like this:
> > > >
> > > > TLB_SIZE = 0x00000800
> > > > min_align_mask = 0x0000ffff
> > > > orig_addr = 0x....1234
> > > > alloc_size = 0x00002800
> > > >
> > > > Minimum alignment mask requires to keep the 1234 at the end. Allocation
> > > > size requires a buffer that is aligned to 16K. Of course, there is no
> > > > 16K-aligned slot with slot_address & 0x7ff == 0x200, but if IO_TLB_SHIFT
> > > > was 14, it would be slot_address & 0x3fff == 0 (low IO_TLB_SHIFT are
> > > > masked off). Since the SWIOTLB API does not guarantee any specific
> > > > value of IO_TLB_SHIFT, callers cannot rely on it. That means 0x1234 is a
> > > > perfectly valid bounce buffer address for this example.
> > > >
> > > > The caller may rightfully expect that the 16K granule containing the
> > > > bounce buffer is not shared with any other user. For the above case I
> > > > suggest to increase the allocation size to 0x4000 already in
> > > > swiotlb_tbl_map_single() and treat 0x1234 as the offset from the slot
> > > > address.
> > >
> > > That doesn't make sense - a caller asks to map some range of kernel
> > > addresses and they get back a corresponding range of DMA addresses; they
> > > cannot make any reasonable assumptions about DMA addresses *outside*
> > > that range. In the example above, the caller has explicitly chosen not
> > > to map the range xxx0000-xxx1234; if they expect the device to actually
> > > access bytes in the DMA range yyy0000-yyy1234, then they should have
> > > mapped the whole range starting from xxx0000 and it is their own error.
> >
> > I agree that the range was not requested. But it is not wrong if
> > SWIOTLB overallocates. In fact, it usually does overallocate because it
> > works with slot granularity.
> >
> > > SWIOTLB does not and cannot provide any memory protection itself, so
> > > there is no functional benefit to automatically over-allocating, all it
> > > will do is waste slots. iommu-dma *can* provide memory protection
> > > between individual mappings via additional layers that SWIOTLB doesn't
> > > know about, so in that case it's iommu-dma's responsibility to
> > > explicitly manage whatever over-allocation is necessary at the SWIOTLB
> > > level to match the IOMMU level.
> >
> > I'm trying to understand what the caller expects to get if they request
> > both buffer alignment (either given implicitly through mapping size or
> > explicitly with an alloc_align_mask) with a min_align_mask and non-zero
> > low bits covered by the buffer alignment.
> >
> > In other words, if iommu_dma_map_page() gets into this situation:
> >
> > * granule size is 4k
> > * device specifies 64k min_align_mask
> > * bit 11 of the original buffer address is non-zero
> >
> > Then you ask for a pair of slots where the first slot has bit 11 == 0
> > (required by alignment to granule size) and also has bit 11 == 1
> > (required to preserve the lowest 16 bits of the original address).
> >
> > Sure, you can fail such a mapping, but is it what the caller expects?
> >

Upfront, thank you very much for the overview. Much appreciated!

> Here's my take on tying all the threads together. There are
> four alignment combinations:
>
> 1. alloc_align_mask: zero; min_align_mask: zero
> 2. alloc_align_mask: zero; min_align_mask: non-zero
> 3. alloc_align_mask: non-zero; min_align_mask: zero/ignored
> 4. alloc_align_mask: non-zero; min_align_mask: non-zero

What does "min_align_mask: zero/ignored" mean? Under which
circumstances should be a non-zero min_align_mask ignored?

> xen_swiotlb_map_page() and dma_direct_map_page() are #1 or #2
> via swiotlb_map() and swiotlb_tbl_map_single()
>
> iommu_dma_map_page() is #3 and #4 via swiotlb_tbl_map_single()
>
> swiotlb_alloc() is #3, directly to swiotlb_find_slots()
>
> For #1, the returned physical address has no constraints if
> the requested size is less than a page. For page size or
> greater, the discussed historical requirement for page
> alignment applies.
>
> For #2, min_align_mask governs the bits of the returned
> physical address that must match the original address. When
> needed, swiotlb must also allocate pre-padding aligned to
> IO_TLB_SIZE that precedes the returned physical address. A
> request size <= swiotlb_max_mapping_size() will not exceed
> IO_TLB_SEGSIZE even with the padding. The historical
> requirement for page alignment does not apply because the
> driver has explicitly used the newer min_align_mask feature.

What is the idea here? Is it the assumption that only old drivers rely
on page alignment, so if they use min_align_mask, it proves that they
are new and must not rely on page alignment?

> For #3, alloc_align_mask specifies the required alignment. No
> pre-padding is needed. Per earlier comments from Robin[1],
> it's reasonable to assume alloc_align_mask (i.e., the granule)
> is >= IO_TLB_SIZE. The original address is not relevant in
> determining the alignment, and the historical page alignment
> requirement does not apply since alloc_align_mask explicitly
> states the alignment.
>
> For #4, the returned physical address must match the bits
> in the original address specified by min_align_mask. swiotlb
> swiotlb must also allocate pre-padding aligned to
> alloc_align_mask that precedes the returned physical address.
> Also per Robin[1], assume alloc_align_mask is >=
> min_align_mask, which solves the conflicting alignment
> problem pointed out by Petr[2]. Perhaps we should add a
> "WARN_ON(alloc_align_mask < min_align_mask)" rather than
> failing depending on which bits of the original address are
> set. Again, the historical requirement for page alignment does
> not apply.

AFAICS the only reason this works in practice is that there are only
two in-tree users of min_align_mask: NVMe and Hyper-V. Both use a mask
of 12 bits, and the IOVA granule size is never smaller than 4K.

If we want to rely on this, then I propose to make a BUG_ON() rather
than WARN_ON().

> I believe Will's patch set implements everything in #2, #3,
> and #4, except my suggested WARN_ON in #4. The historical page
> alignment in #1 presumably needs to be added. Also, the current
> implementation of #4 has a bug in that IO_TLB_SEGSIZE could be
> exceeded as pointed out here[3], but Robin was OK with not
> fixing that now.

Agreed.

Thank you again, this helps a lot.

Petr T

>
> Michael
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20240221113504.7161-1-will@kernel.org/T/#mbd31cbfbdf841336e25f37758c8af1a0b6d8f3eb
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20240228133930.15400-1-will@kernel.org/T/#mf631679b302b1f5c7cacc82f4c15fb4b19f3dea1
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20240221113504.7161-1-will@kernel.org/T/#m4179a909777ec751f3dc15b515617477e6682600