On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 13:04 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 16:46 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > The problem here is that in some of the problematic cases the
> > virtio
> > driver may not even be loaded.  If someone runs an L1 guest with an
> > IOMMU-bypassing virtio device and assigns it to L2 using vfio, then
> > *boom* L1 crashes.  (Same if, say, DPDK gets used, I think.)
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only way out of this while keeping the "platform" stuff would
> > > be to
> > > also bump some kind of version in the virtio config (or PCI
> > > header). I
> > > have no other way to differenciate between "this is an old qemu
> > > that
> > > doesn't do the 'bypass property' yet" from "this is a virtio
> > > device
> > > that doesn't bypass".
> > > 
> > > Any better idea ?
> > 
> > I'd suggest that, in the absence of the new DT binding, we assume
> > that
> > any PCI device with the virtio vendor ID is passthrough on powerpc.
> >   I
> > can do this in the virtio driver, but if it's in the platform code
> > then vfio gets it right too (i.e. fails to load).
> The problem is there isn't *a* virtio vendor ID. It's the RedHat
> vendor
> ID which will be used by more than just virtio, so we need to
> specifically list the devices.
> Additionally, that still means that once we have a virtio device that
> actually uses the iommu, powerpc will not work since the "workaround"
> above will kick in.
> The "in absence of the new DT binding" doesn't make that much sense.
> Those platforms use device-trees defined since the dawn of ages by
> actual open firmware implementations, they either have no iommu
> representation in there (Macs, the platform code hooks it all up) or
> have various properties related to the iommu but no concept of
> "bypass"
> in there.
> We can *add* a new property under some circumstances that indicates a
> bypass on a per-device basis, however that doesn't completely solve
> it:
>   - As I said above, what does the absence of that property mean ? An
> old qemu that does bypass on all virtio or a new qemu trying to tell
> you that the virtio device actually does use the iommu (or some other
> environment that isn't qemu) ?
>   - On things like macs, the device-tree is generated by openbios, it
> would have to have some added logic to try to figure that out, which
> means it needs to know *via different means* that some or all virtio
> devices bypass the iommu.
> I thus go back to my original statement, it's a LOT easier to handle
> if
> the device itself is self describing, indicating whether it is set to
> bypass a host iommu or not. For L1->L2, well, that wouldn't be the
> first time qemu/VFIO plays tricks with the passed through device
> configuration space...
> Note that the above can be solved via some kind of compromise: The
> device self describes the ability to honor the iommu, along with the
> property (or ACPI table entry) that indicates whether or not it does.
> IE. We could use the revision or ProgIf field of the config space for
> example. Or something in virtio config. If it's an "old" device, we
> know it always bypass. If it's a new device, we know it only bypasses
> if the corresponding property is in. I still would have to sort out
> the
> openbios case for mac among others but it's at least a workable
> direction.
> BTW. Don't you have a similar problem on x86 that today qemu claims
> that everything honors the iommu in ACPI ?
> Unless somebody can come up with a better idea...

Can something be done by means of PCIe capabilities?
ATS (Address Translation Support) seems like a natural choice?


> Cheers,
> Ben.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux"
> in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to