Re: [PATCH] vfio: selftests: Skip vfio_dma_map_limit_test if mapping returns -EINVAL

David Matlack
2025-11-10T19:46:28Z

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:38 AM Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 18:00:08 +0000
> David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2025-11-10 08:48 AM, Alex Mastro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:17:09AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 17:20:10 -0800
> > > > Alex Mastro <amastro@fb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 02:37:10PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:19:48 -0800
> > > > > > Alex Mastro <amastro@fb.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Here's my attempt at adding some machinery to query iova ranges, with
> > > > > > > normalization to iommufd's struct. I kept the vfio capability chain stuff
> > > > > > > relatively generic so we can use it for other things in the future if needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems we were both hacking on this, I hadn't seen you posted this
> > > > > > before sending:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20251108212954.26477-1-alex@shazbot.org/T/#u
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we can combine the best merits of each. Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes! I have been thinking along the following lines
> > > > > - Your idea to change the end of address space test to allocate at the end of
> > > > > the supported range is better and more general than my idea of skipping the
> > > > > test if ~(iova_t)0 is out of bounds. We should do that.
> > > > > - Introducing the concept iova allocator makes sense.
> > > > > - I think it's worthwhile to keep common test concepts like vfio_pci_device
> > > > > less opinionated/stateful so as not to close the door on certain categories of
> > > > > testing in the future. For example, if we ever wanted to test IOVA range
> > > > > contraction after binding additional devices to an IOAS or vfio container.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, fetching the IOVA ranges should really occur after all the devices
> > > > are attached to the container/ioas rather than in device init. We need
> > > > another layer of abstraction for the shared IOMMU state. We can
> > > > probably work on that incrementally.
> >
> > I am working on pulling the iommu state out of struct vfio_pci_device
> > here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20251008232531.1152035-5-dmatlack@google.com/
> >
> > But if we keep the iova allocator a separate object, then we can
> > introduce it mosty indepently from this series. I imagine the only thing
> > that will change is passing a struct iommu * instead of a struct
> > vfio_pci_device * when initializing the allocator.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I certainly like the idea of testing range contraction, but I don't
> > > > know where we can reliably see that behavior.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about the exact testing strategy for that yet either actually.
> > >
> > > > > - What do you think about making the concept of an IOVA allocator something
> > > > > standalone for which tests that need it can create one? I think it would
> > > > > compose pretty cleanly on top of my vfio_pci_iova_ranges().
> > > >
> > > > Yep, that sounds good. Obviously what's there is just the simplest
> > > > possible linear, aligned allocator with no attempt to fill gaps or
> > > > track allocations for freeing. We're not likely to exhaust the address
> > > > space in an individual unit test, I just wanted to relieve the test
> > > > from the burden of coming up with a valid IOVA, while leaving some
> > > > degree of geometry info for exploring the boundaries.
> > >
> > > Keeping the simple linear allocator makes sense to me.
> > >
> > > > Are you interested in generating a combined v2?
> > >
> > > Sure -- I can put up a v2 series which stages like so
> > > - adds stateless low level iova ranges queries
> > > - adds iova allocator utility object
> > > - fixes end of ranges tests, uses iova allocator instead of iova=vaddr
> >
> > +1 to getting rid of iova=vaddr.
> >
> > But note that the HugeTLB tests in vfio_dma_mapping_test.c have
> > alignment requirements to pass on Intel (since it validates the pages
> > are mapped at the right level in the I/O page tables using the Intel
> > debugfs interface).
> >
> > > > TBH I'm not sure that just marking a test as skipped based on the DMA
> > > > mapping return is worthwhile with a couple proposals to add IOVA range
> > > > support already on the table. Thanks,
> > >
> > > I'll put up the new series rooted on linux-vfio/next soon.
> >
> > I think we should try to get vfio_dma_mapping_test back to passing in
> > time for Linux 6.18, since the newly failing test was added in 6.18.
> >
> > The sequence I was imagining was:
> >
> > 1. Merge the quick fix to skip the test into 6.18.
>
> We'd still have the iova=vaddr failure on some platforms, but could
> hack around that by hard coding some "well supporteD" IOVA like 0 or
> 4GB.

Good point. We tried using IOVA=0 internally for a while but hit
issues on ARM platforms that have a reserved region at [0x8000000,
0x8100000). So I think iova=4GB would be better.

>
> > 2. Split struct iommu from struct vfio_pci_device.
> > 3. Add iova allocator.
> >
> > AlexW, how much time do we have to get AlexM's series ready? I am fine
> > with doing (3), then (2), and dropping (1) if there's enough time.
>
> I'll certainly agree that it'd be a much better precedent if the self
> test were initially working, but also we should not increase the scope
> beyond what we need to make it work for v6.18. If we can get that done
> in the next day or two, add it to linux-next mid-week, and get Linus to
> pull for rc6, I think that'd be reasonable. Thanks,

Ack. I'll send a small series with this patch plus a patch to replace
iova=vaddr with iova=4G, and we can use that as a back-up plan if
AlexM's iova allocator isn't ready in time for 6.18.