public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tushar Dave <tdave@nvidia.com>
To: joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	kevin.tian@intel.com, jgg@nvidia.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com,
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 rc] iommu: Skip PASID validation for devices without PASID capability
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 18:19:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250520011937.3230557-1-tdave@nvidia.com> (raw)

Generally PASID support requires ACS settings that usually create
single device groups, but there are some niche cases where we can get
multi-device groups and still have working PASID support. The primary
issue is that PCI switches are not required to treat PASID tagged TLPs
specially so appropriate ACS settings are required to route all TLPs to
the host bridge if PASID is going to work properly.

pci_enable_pasid() does check that each device that will use PASID has
the proper ACS settings to achieve this routing.

However, no-PASID devices can be combined with PASID capable devices
within the same topology using non-uniform ACS settings. In this case
the no-PASID devices may not have strict route to host ACS flags and
end up being grouped with the PASID devices.

This configuration fails to allow use of the PASID within the iommu
core code which wrongly checks if the no-PASID device supports PASID.

Fix this by ignoring no-PASID devices during the PASID validation. They
will never issue a PASID TLP anyhow so they can be ignored.

Fixes: c404f55c26fc ("iommu: Validate the PASID in iommu_attach_device_pasid()")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Tushar Dave <tdave@nvidia.com>
---

changes in v4:
- rebase to 6.15-rc7

 drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
index 4f91a740c15f..9d728800a862 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
@@ -3366,10 +3366,12 @@ static int __iommu_set_group_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
 	int ret;
 
 	for_each_group_device(group, device) {
-		ret = domain->ops->set_dev_pasid(domain, device->dev,
-						 pasid, old);
-		if (ret)
-			goto err_revert;
+		if (device->dev->iommu->max_pasids > 0) {
+			ret = domain->ops->set_dev_pasid(domain, device->dev,
+							 pasid, old);
+			if (ret)
+				goto err_revert;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -3379,15 +3381,18 @@ static int __iommu_set_group_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
 	for_each_group_device(group, device) {
 		if (device == last_gdev)
 			break;
-		/*
-		 * If no old domain, undo the succeeded devices/pasid.
-		 * Otherwise, rollback the succeeded devices/pasid to the old
-		 * domain. And it is a driver bug to fail attaching with a
-		 * previously good domain.
-		 */
-		if (!old || WARN_ON(old->ops->set_dev_pasid(old, device->dev,
+		if (device->dev->iommu->max_pasids > 0) {
+			/*
+			 * If no old domain, undo the succeeded devices/pasid.
+			 * Otherwise, rollback the succeeded devices/pasid to
+			 * the old domain. And it is a driver bug to fail
+			 * attaching with a previously good domain.
+			 */
+			if (!old ||
+			    WARN_ON(old->ops->set_dev_pasid(old, device->dev,
 							    pasid, domain)))
-			iommu_remove_dev_pasid(device->dev, pasid, domain);
+				iommu_remove_dev_pasid(device->dev, pasid, domain);
+		}
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -3398,8 +3403,10 @@ static void __iommu_remove_group_pasid(struct iommu_group *group,
 {
 	struct group_device *device;
 
-	for_each_group_device(group, device)
-		iommu_remove_dev_pasid(device->dev, pasid, domain);
+	for_each_group_device(group, device) {
+		if (device->dev->iommu->max_pasids > 0)
+			iommu_remove_dev_pasid(device->dev, pasid, domain);
+	}
 }
 
 /*
@@ -3440,7 +3447,13 @@ int iommu_attach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
 
 	mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
 	for_each_group_device(group, device) {
-		if (pasid >= device->dev->iommu->max_pasids) {
+		/*
+		 * Skip PASID validation for devices without PASID support
+		 * (max_pasids = 0). These devices cannot issue transactions
+		 * with PASID, so they don't affect group's PASID usage.
+		 */
+		if ((device->dev->iommu->max_pasids > 0) &&
+		    (pasid >= device->dev->iommu->max_pasids)) {
 			ret = -EINVAL;
 			goto out_unlock;
 		}
-- 
2.34.1


             reply	other threads:[~2025-05-20  1:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-20  1:19 Tushar Dave [this message]
2025-05-20  8:53 ` [PATCH v4 rc] iommu: Skip PASID validation for devices without PASID capability Vasant Hegde
2025-05-20  9:12 ` Baolu Lu
2025-05-22  7:10 ` Joerg Roedel

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=20250520011937.3230557-1-tdave@nvidia.com \
    --to=tdave@nvidia.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yi.l.liu@intel.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