On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:19 +0200, j...@8bytes.org wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:15:43PM +0000, Sironi, Filippo wrote: > > I don't believe that we want to trust a userspace driver here, this > > may > > result in hosts becoming unstable because devices are asked to do > > things > > they aren't meant to do (e.g., DMA beyond 48 bits). > > How is the hosts stability affected when a device is programmed with > handles outside of its DMA mask?
I wouldn't be surprised if a PCIe device raises a PCIe SERR if it is asked to do DMA beyond its abilities. > Anyway, someone needs to know how to use the device in the end, and > this > entity also needs to know the DMA mask of the device and pass it down > to > path to the dma-iommu code. > > Regards, > > Joerg I agree, device drivers should do the right thing and if we have generic device drivers they may need "quirks" based on VID:DID to do the right thing. Still, I believe that the VFIO case is special because the device driver is effectively in userspace I really think that trusting userspace isn't quite correct (and we can keep discussing on this front). I think that this discussion is orthogonal wrt the spirit of the patches. They are actually adding a few bits to the AMD IOMMU driver (and propagating them to the right places) to implement a portion of the specification that wasn't implemented, i.e., relying on the IVRS table. These patches are valuable independently on the content of the IVRS table, be it 32, 48, or 64 bits. Filippo Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH Krausenstr. 38 10117 Berlin Geschaeftsfuehrung: Christian Schlaeger, Jonathan Weiss Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg unter HRB 149173 B Sitz: Berlin Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879 _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu