From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
eric.auger@st.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
christoffer.dall@linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: patches@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com, pranav.sawargaonkar@gmail.com,
p.fedin@samsung.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Jean-Philippe.Brucker@arm.com, julien.grall@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:39:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <571A0D61.5010009@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <571A080A.4040406@arm.com>
Hi Robin,
On 04/22/2016 01:16 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hi Eric, Alex,
>
> On 19/04/16 18:24, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP for arm-smmu(-v3). Indeed the
>> irq_remapping capability is abstracted on irqchip side for ARM as
>> opposed to Intel IOMMU featuring IRQ remapping HW.
>>
>> So to check IRQ remapping capability, the msi domain needs to be
>> checked instead.
>>
>> This commit needs to be applied after "vfio/type1: also check IRQ
>> remapping capability at msi domain" else the legacy interrupt
>> assignment gets broken with arm-smmu.
>
> Hmm, that smells of papering over a different problem. I may have missed
> it, but I don't see anything changing legacy interrupt behaviour in this
> series - are legacy INTx (or platform) interrupts intrinsically safe
> because they're physically wired, or intrinsically unsafe because they
> could be shared?
I think it is safe. With legacy/platform interrupts we have:
vfio pci driver physical IRQ handler signals an irqfd.
upon this irqfd signaling KVM injects a virtual IRQ.
So the assigned device does not have any way to trigger a storm of
interrupts on the host, as opposed to with MSI.
Does it make sense to you?
Best Regards
Eric
If it's the latter then I don't see how the IOMMU or
> MSI controller changes anything in that respect, and if it's the former
> then surely we should support that right now without the SMMU having to
> lie about MSI isolation? I started looking into it but I'm a bit lost...
>
> Robin.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index afd0dac..1d0106c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -1386,7 +1386,8 @@ static bool arm_smmu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
>> case IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY:
>> return true;
>> case IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP:
>> - return true; /* MSIs are just memory writes */
>> + /* interrupt translation handled at MSI controller level */
>> + return false;
>> case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC:
>> return true;
>> default:
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> index 492339f..6232b2a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>> @@ -1312,7 +1312,8 @@ static bool arm_smmu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
>> */
>> return true;
>> case IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP:
>> - return true; /* MSIs are just memory writes */
>> + /* interrupt translation handled at MSI controller level */
>> + return false;
>> case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC:
>> return true;
>> default:
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-22 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-19 17:24 [PATCH v7 0/7] KVM PCIe/MSI passthrough on ARM/ARM64: kernel part 3/3: vfio changes Eric Auger
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 1/7] vfio: introduce a vfio_dma type field Eric Auger
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 2/7] vfio/type1: vfio_find_dma accepting a type argument Eric Auger
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 3/7] vfio/type1: specialize remove_dma and replay according to type Eric Auger
2016-04-20 3:05 ` kbuild test robot
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 4/7] vfio: allow reserved iova registration Eric Auger
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 5/7] vfio/type1: also check IRQ remapping capability at msi domain Eric Auger
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP Eric Auger
2016-04-22 11:16 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-22 11:39 ` Eric Auger [this message]
2016-04-22 15:40 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-19 17:24 ` [PATCH v7 7/7] vfio/type1: return MSI mapping requirements with VFIO_IOMMU_GET_INFO Eric Auger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=571A0D61.5010009@linaro.org \
--to=eric.auger@linaro.org \
--cc=Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com \
--cc=Jean-Philippe.Brucker@arm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=eric.auger@st.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=p.fedin@samsung.com \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=pranav.sawargaonkar@gmail.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox