On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:10:43 +0800 Lu Baolu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 2020/6/23 23:43, Jacob Pan wrote: > > For guest requested IOTLB invalidation, address and mask are > > provided as part of the invalidation data. VT-d HW silently ignores > > any address bits below the mask. SW shall also allow such case but > > give warning if address does not align with the mask. This patch > > relax the fault handling from error to warning and proceed with > > invalidation request with the given mask. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > > b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c index 5ea5732d5ec4..50fc62413a35 > > 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > > @@ -5439,13 +5439,12 @@ intel_iommu_sva_invalidate(struct > > iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev, > > switch (BIT(cache_type)) { > > case IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_IOTLB: > > + /* HW will ignore LSB bits based on > > address mask */ if (inv_info->granularity == IOMMU_INV_GRANU_ADDR && > > size && > > (inv_info->addr_info.addr & > > ((BIT(VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + size)) - 1))) { > > - pr_err_ratelimited("Address out of > > range, 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > > - > > inv_info->addr_info.addr, size); > > - ret = -ERANGE; > > - goto out_unlock; > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Address out of > > range, 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > > + > > inv_info->addr_info.addr, size); > > I don't think WARN_ONCE() is suitable here. It makes users think it's > a kernel bug. How about pr_warn_ratelimited()? > I think pr_warn_ratelimited might still be too chatty. There is no functional issues, we just don't to silently ignore it. Perhaps just say: WARN_ONCE(1, "User provided address not page aligned, alignment forced") ? > Best regards, > baolu > > > } > > > > /* > > [Jacob Pan]
