qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: fix feature negotiation for ACCESS_PLATFORM
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:55:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fsort5a6.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220209212750.25ddcebe.pasic@linux.ibm.com>

On Wed, Feb 09 2022, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 18:24:56 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 09 2022, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -78,16 +78,19 @@ void virtio_bus_device_plugged(VirtIODevice *vdev, Error **errp)
>> >          return;
>> >      }
>> >  
>> > -    vdev_has_iommu = virtio_host_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM);
>> > -    if (klass->get_dma_as != NULL && has_iommu) {
>> > +    vdev->dma_as = &address_space_memory;
>> > +    if (has_iommu) {
>> > +        vdev_has_iommu = virtio_host_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM);
>> > +        /* Fail FEATURE_OK if the device tries to drop IOMMU_PLATFORM */  
>> 
>> I must admit that the more I stare at this code, the more confused I
>> get. We run this function during device realization, and the reason that
>> the feature bit might have gotten lost is that the ->get_features()
>> device callback dropped it. This happens before the driver is actually
>> involved; the check whether the *driver* dropped the feature is done
>> during feature validation, which is another code path. 
> [moved text from here]
>> 
>> >          virtio_add_feature(&vdev->host_features, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM); [Mark 1]
>
>
> Let us have a look at 
> static int virtio_validate_features(VirtIODevice *vdev)                         
> {                                                                               
>     VirtioDeviceClass *k = VIRTIO_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(vdev);                       
>                                                                                 
>     if (virtio_host_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM) &&               
>         !virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM)) {              
>         return -EFAULT;                                                         [Mark 2]                  
>     }                                                                           
> [..]
>
> So were it not of the [Mark 1] we could not hit [Mark 2] if the feature
> bit was lost because the ->get_features() callback dropped it. Yes,
> feature negotiation is another code path, but the two are interdependent
> in a non-trivial way. That is why I added that comment.

Yes, of course we need to offer the bit to the driver in the first
place. My point is that the code here is not what makes us fail
FEATURES_OK; we won't even get to that point because the device will
fail realization.

>
> [moved here]
>> So what we do
>> here is failing device realization if a backend doesn't support
>> IOMMU_PLATFORM, isn't it?
>
> Not really. We fail the device realization if !vdev_has_iommu &&
> vdev->dma_as != &address_space_memory, that is the device does not
> support address translation, but we need it to support address
> translation because ->dma_as != &address_space memory. If however
> ->dma_as == &address_space memory we carry on happily even if ->get_features() dropped
> IOMMU_PLATFORM, because we don't actually need an iova -> gpa
> translation. This is the case with virtiofs confidential guests for
> example.
>

Well yes, that's what I meant, I just did not spell out all of the
conditions...

> But we still don't want the guest dropping ACCESS_PLATFORM, because it is
> still mandatory, because the device won't operate correctly unless the
> driver grants access to the pieces of memory that the device needs to
> access. The underlying mechanism of granting access may not have
> anything to do with an IOMMU though.
>
> Does it make sense now?

The code yes, the comment no. What we are actually doing is failing
realization so we don't end up offering a device without IOMMU_PLATFORM
that would need it. The code that fails FEATURES_OK if the driver
dropped it is already in place.

I'd suggest a comment like

/* make sure that the device did not drop a required IOMMU_PLATFORM */

or so.


>
>> > -        vdev->dma_as = klass->get_dma_as(qbus->parent);
>> > -        if (!vdev_has_iommu && vdev->dma_as != &address_space_memory) {
>> > -            error_setg(errp,
>> > +        if (klass->get_dma_as) {
>> > +            vdev->dma_as = klass->get_dma_as(qbus->parent);
>> > +            if (!vdev_has_iommu && vdev->dma_as != &address_space_memory) {
>> > +                error_setg(errp,
>> >                         "iommu_platform=true is not supported by the device");
>> > +                return;
>> > +            }
>> >          }
>> > -    } else {
>> > -        vdev->dma_as = &address_space_memory;
>> >      }
>> >  }
>> >    
>> 
>> 



  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-10  9:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-09 12:45 [PATCH 1/1] virtio: fix feature negotiation for ACCESS_PLATFORM Halil Pasic
2022-02-09 17:24 ` Cornelia Huck
2022-02-09 20:27   ` Halil Pasic
2022-02-10  9:55     ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2022-02-10 10:32       ` Halil Pasic
2022-02-10 11:19         ` Cornelia Huck
2022-02-10 13:29           ` Halil Pasic
2022-03-04  8:12             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-04 11:08               ` Halil Pasic

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=87fsort5a6.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
    --cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).