From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.trustedfirmware.org (lists.trustedfirmware.org [18.214.241.189]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 562B5606A323 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lists.trustedfirmware.org header.i=@lists.trustedfirmware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2024 header.b=S4LL4O7P; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=BOP4NQqP Received: from lists.trustedfirmware.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.trustedfirmware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB259453B4 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:51:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lists.trustedfirmware.org; s=2024; t=1793199061; bh=Lz7WvapjYKybe9inAE7cARypgwOjM6/WUw+3g6HhEkw=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:CC:List-Id:List-Archive: List-Help:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Subscribe:List-Unsubscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=S4LL4O7PO2Mg+OyoZTvWHO8KgIoOlCJflVxfbF3hUPU59vJQAtB5TXi+ebGg4VEIj jiixNy2O15VBnaZt+0vv3KMvyylU9RvVNvf4pMmiyB/yluqf4dUVfEz/AH2OmCO5aJ 3HDoUdwIMYSFDil1gLP3NHWJzX+9PyapBV9MbB1gaS/iasckX9B3oO///VRjgk0fll mucjw/IPGwSXxOphQll0+kN3E8WbAkfxihnO3KncKNvAT7SpD7x5KBwXsiVXrqGLMt K7NL/MzGZ0LLCSneGwrviv+564tA9mhnQBFqZxMxli4GRxqYBfagc6dBR2EAp90To8 3zmFH7L8n0G/Q== Received: from mail-ej1-f43.google.com (mail-ej1-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) by lists.trustedfirmware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E9F44B14 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:50:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.trustedfirmware.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=BOP4NQqP; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by mail-ej1-f43.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c40e30c26a4so353441566b.0 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20260707; t=1793199042; x=1793803842; darn=lists.trustedfirmware.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=HF1altOhSOliHgMv/AZ/rbBGnqwe/0k0dVHlSjsTcys=; b=BOP4NQqPLmLkPjKjbZ3gk976vMWEvy8P8YrznDN13ucfcvYfh/YSEWsNQD7YjBbANC zhlJ5zl9LH5uUBLLigdYYjraAvB+8eMN/jz4CfMKmzfGbHJfJVo3FL4+eNziBW5XH9ew EY3KxOwPW+8F5LiebREZ+Ddm1odBJf5Q+kkcNM5JXnAlsogMxRNca9VAP9E6tZRHJTUM KRWEFMrjdyE3DUgRallK3nv2CEeX3V29Z8z4H6T61ACziqJ8K61T/cn4Jh1u+OZYozYm C77w+guh45F1w367cVhoB4F5AaY7f2Op05lx+3mLOzS2V+KP/FaG6TWp7A/OafmsPiOa pVUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793199042; x=1793803842; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=HF1altOhSOliHgMv/AZ/rbBGnqwe/0k0dVHlSjsTcys=; b=lsUVCtzB/IQuhk/gg9+iMKiI9XIw+2G6k3/Nj+sbdPpA9azFvhl0MwJvcJ4+q1xbd+ Z9YSAgC3LpTRmG2s8Bm5etl78GXjhzTQe2Az2mIabyTgBLgkAFZSL0iZHuMWELLKLNl0 fbaWb3cv2uOT2DynB50ue4Xg87aJaGKe/f9WPcvIoBSfMybotLM9JlOwbHgU1EC3OGFZ AtdiTOqZ+9D9VpibLjSdinwBfctGm30D3XpFWHqAgJ6mXySv3CTQ3DJr+m7NOeOy2T3/ 8S2+RsP2/w180zydTe0wBFUIL8mnTc8JRvuDZpJrvrN22EBcXnczJh/ld5YAxivLoCSw Otvw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzGJvbtTc5MeEcf+0SsaSs8FmJNUA5cz9BdIJi+6jwgknUaOzFUAp5VEZ5XDyP+UZBhEjQE4dw=@lists.trustedfirmware.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYJFkKIhTKEHZmd1cGfzP7BEmeWEaf2UirGx567WdYWCrXStz2Jo 2e1SaZMUoolv4exxJuDdSsd/7+xk/PWHaAwRtT3ZaUpFJD2fmWuyJNIB1KOAij1soA== X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0Z/ggonsnfwGO0EN84RQrk9fIQc1Izg3wBRgP4JAL5UAi+3HCTWKo22FDvFvm drNNcFDQ0pT9uM/PbcFtTUf0TTX7xROP5Y4Jn28UFQyFiMLl0p+OlVZkRQwImuNvSZxPy/bY+Yz 48UFv6feJKM6k4b87aW/w/PBe9ERUneiwDS+A2Rdvza5Eu2xU7RpFrtNdljhcHD9OGohnOrN3sq MnQ1Zq7j8sFRZ0LSCgYgUxNY5vVIjHSdB6WKZ+2ORUZR5iX0vcxGSie398tG0/pqYrx4bSRqYwP h2KBqtCKz/eGkj6OUDsoN7WBK2sr7eZsc3EAMS0WyFhCJoIV+wN0djnxOZMGGptkuKv8TTBagRE Gls/ZJx5+3sfrBeF2VzwrC8QUum0RCa2Qhak4q7XdD6JFaW1kdR+fzmLK3ypfHFr0iED/zOWLqT /EhzlaqYbNGLtlZnU9rz6bDHz8t3tDWeJ2qhqRRiPub/+izQm6I5W54bA2IBsxtuvSbld/HUuEP 8iUSXSjASy/oGpNAV3vPc5x5IRpkG/aV08K34495jSlvs4Ait9qRcfwj7WzvipdLy6BF8y908UW Iv0d1wta0TbuHgDxIX8aN3qkdMSXAjVRFNZ/bjFrpL7T61z3f8TEINC3/v8EwYS9pXCAD8OGanr Pr7qMXBVa1ZE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:99c9:b0:c29:4b57:503e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c49c620c08emr153260566b.1.1793199040959; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (0.182.34.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.34.182.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-c46bd35004asm607338466b.4.2026.10.28.07.50.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:50:36 +0000 To: Sumit Garg Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Unmap FF-A lent memory from direct map Message-ID: References: X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[google.com,reject]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[google.com:s=20260707]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[google.com:dkim]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWELVE(0.00)[19]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.218.43:from]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.218.43:from]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org]; NEURAL_HAM(-0.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[google.com:+] X-Rspamd-Server: lists.trustedfirmware.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 03E9F44B14 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Message-ID-Hash: IPM32GXXENGXSDF3GPX52EGVPQJ4ZVZD X-Message-ID-Hash: IPM32GXXENGXSDF3GPX52EGVPQJ4ZVZD X-MailFrom: vdonnefort@google.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-op-tee.lists.trustedfirmware.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Will Deacon , brendan.jackman@linux.dev, catalin.marinas@arm.com, rppt@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sudeep.holla@kernel.org, jenswi@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, ardb@kernel.org, thierry.reding@kernel.org, david@kernel.org, danielmentz@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: From: Vincent Donnefort via OP-TEE Reply-To: Vincent Donnefort X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 03:26:30PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 at 10:37:59 +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 06:46:12PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Oct 2026 at 12:02:55 +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > > > Sorry, not sure why Sumit's email was dropped... > > > > > > The problem was with my mutt config, it should be fixed now. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 11:48:00AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 06:04:06PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 at 12:33:07 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 05:43:08PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > > > > Looks like you dropped me from your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Huh, that's weird. If I hit reply-all ('g') in mutt, it moves the entire > > > > > > > CC list to To: and drops you. I suspect the same thing happened to Thierry > > > > > > > when he replied here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/arJcN60nagFKXj2Q@orome/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't figure out why that's happening :/ > > > > > > > I manually tried to fix the To: and Cc: lines in this message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 at 15:55:59 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > > > I spoke to Brendan at LPC (?) last year but this doesn't really work > > > > > > > > > for arm64 because it relies on being able to unmap arbitrary parts of > > > > > > > > > the linear map, which isn't generally possible unless you force pte-level > > > > > > > > > mappings for everything, which is prohibitive for perf/power. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the cover letter it's about allocating pages that are not present > > > > > > > > in the direct map. This essentially fits the protected DMABufs use-case > > > > > > > > where we don't want any kernel mapping to exist at any time. Bufers > > > > > > > > allocated from protected DMABufs are only meant to be accessed by the > > > > > > > > TEE implementation or HW accelerators like in the secure media pipeline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like it should probably build on top of this series, then. > > > > > > > > > > > > The main problem I see with this series is it tries to move from the generic > > > > > > CMA allocator to a reserved FF-A CMA pool which again comes from the > > > > > > DT. We already support reserved pool allocations via "no-map" which are > > > > > > discovered dynamically from OP-TEE. > > > > > > > > > > I can't think of a way around a DT declaration. We need to know what region is > > > > > PTE-level before the direct map is installed and of_reserved_mem is very handy > > > > > for that purpose. And as this PTE-level mapping is costly we certainly only want > > > > > to enable it for platforms that absolutely need it. > > > > > > > > > > > I am rather thinking of a way to turn the default CMA allocator to be > > > PTE-level mapped. Since the overall idea for this dynamic protected > > > buffers was to reuse memory efficiently, otherwise the reserved buffer > > > approach is already there to use as "no-map" via DT. > > > > When the default CMA allocator is setup, it is already too late > > (dma_contiguous_reserve() is called after map_mem()). I am not sure this can be > > reordered easily due to the dependency on dma_limits_init(). > > Yeah I saw that constraint too, let's leave it for future extension > then although having this reordering dependency fixed will be ideal. > > > > > So the only case it would work would be when a reserved memory has set > > "linux,cma-default". > > > > Let's rather just turn DT based default CMA pool to support PTE-level > mapping and keep it configurable via Kconfig or cmdline or DT. If we need a DT declaration anyway, a Kconfig and a cmdline option aren't really necessary. Also, Rob wasn't very keen on having a DT option for the reserved memory and suggested to have a compatible string instead [1]. So perhaps we could have a a separate driver that handles the unmapping. linux,cma { compatible = "shared-dma-pool", "unmap-on-alloc"; reusable; linux,cma-default; ... } That "unmap-on-alloc" driver sets the memblock flags and register some cma hooks (to be defined) for cma_alloc/cma_free where it unmaps/re-maps into the linear map. The nice property is optee won't need to be modified anymore. The downside is the entire pool is now mapped at PTE-level. [1] http://lore.kernel.org/all/20260902172436.GB1440252-robh@kernel.org/ -- Vincent > > -Sumit > > > > > > > If we can have "cma_unmap" cmdline option alongside "cma" then it can > > > turn the existing default CMA allocator to support unmapping buffers. > > > Not requiring a DT change at all, although we can have the DT property > > > for the default pool too if platforms want to opt for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we can rather support a generic CMA like allocator for arm64 which > > > > > > can support unmapped allocations then I am all for it. These platform > > > > > > specific reserved pools isn't a scalable solution. > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by generic CMA allocator here? An extension to > > > > > shared-dma-pool? Or having the CMA automatically doing the unmap/map on > > > > > cma_alloc() cma_release()? > > > > > > > > > > Right now I have created an API for the unmapping/remapping part. It adds a > > > > > burden on the caller, but the alternative solution is introducing post-alloc > > > > > pre-dealloc callbacks in the CMA, which looked a bit overkilled to me when > > > > > the users of that "ffa-pool" are only optee and the nvidia video dma-buf heap. > > > > > > > > > > > I am not too worried about where the actual implementation lives but > > > looks like CMA driver to be the better place. I think use-cases like > > > guest_memfd proposed as a user for __GFP_UNMAPPED on arm64 will also be > > > looking for this feature. > > > > > > -Sumit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could allocate the DMABufs from a CMA region that has no linear alias. > > > > > > > > > > > > Allocation from generic CMA pool is already the case here: > > > > > > > > > > > > tee_shm_alloc_dma_mem() -> > > > > > > dma_alloc_pages() > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean it's just fine to unmap buffers allocated from generic CMA > > > > > > region since it doesn't have any linear alias? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vincent's series tackles that by using a pool so that only that part of > > > > > > > > > memory requires the pte-level mappings in the linear map. That's the > > > > > > > > > whole point of it, so I don't think it makes sense to drop it in favour > > > > > > > > > of Brendan's approach (which doesn't work). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For protected DMABufs, we even don't require any pte-level mappings in > > > > > > > > linear map. The whole idea of mapping and unmapping is just a bottleneck > > > > > > > > for performance sensitive secure media pipeline use-cases. That's why if > > > > > > > > we can support __GFP_UNMAPPED with the memory allocator on arm64 would > > > > > > > > be the best fit for this use-case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is that you will require pte-level mappings for the linear map > > > > > > > if you want to unmap from it at runtime on arm64. If you don't, then you > > > > > > > can end up needing to split a block mapping (e.g. pmd-level) when you > > > > > > > decide to unmap only part of it and there isn't a safe way to do that on > > > > > > > arm64 without transiently unmapping the entire block, which can lead to > > > > > > > fatal translation faults during that window. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you here, what I am rather trying to find if on arm64 there > > > > > > is any possibilty to have a generic allocator for unmapped pages. That's > > > > > > the use-case here as well as what Brendan't patch-set was trying to address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the question is why arm64 can't support __GFP_UNMAPPED similar to > > > > > > > > how Brendan is doing it for x86? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because arm64 != x86? Presumably x86 doesn't have the strict > > > > > > > break-before-make requirements we have on arm64. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, sounds like you are eluding to that the generic MM flag > > > > > > __GFP_UNMAPPED being proposed can't be supported on arm64, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Sumit > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Vincent > >