On 2023/12/22 14:57, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM
+
+static void intel_nested_flush_cache(struct dmar_domain *domain, u64
addr,
+ unsigned long npages, u32 *error)
+{
+ struct iommu_domain_info *info;
+ unsigned long i;
+ unsigned mask;
+ u32 fault = 0;
+
+ if (npages == U64_MAX)
+ mask = 64 - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ else
+ mask = ilog2(__roundup_pow_of_two(npages));
+
+ xa_for_each(&domain->iommu_array, i, info) {
+ nested_flush_pasid_iotlb(info->iommu, domain, addr,
npages, 0);
so IOMMU_VTD_INV_FLAGS_LEAF is defined but ignored?
yeah... it is. It is named as ih in the driver code. But it appears only
the below code is set ih. When calling iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(), the 5th
parameter (ih) may be true.
static int intel_iommu_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
unsigned long val, void *v)
{
struct memory_notify *mhp = v;
unsigned long start_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn);
unsigned long last_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn +
mhp->nr_pages - 1);
switch (val) {
case MEM_GOING_ONLINE:
if (iommu_domain_identity_map(si_domain,
start_vpfn, last_vpfn)) {
pr_warn("Failed to build identity map for [%lx-%lx]\n",
start_vpfn, last_vpfn);
return NOTIFY_BAD;
}
break;
case MEM_OFFLINE:
case MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE:
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
LIST_HEAD(freelist);
domain_unmap(si_domain, start_vpfn, last_vpfn,
&freelist);
rcu_read_lock();
for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd)
iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, si_domain,
start_vpfn, mhp->nr_pages,
list_empty(&freelist), 0);
rcu_read_unlock();
put_pages_list(&freelist);
}
break;
}
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
+
+ if (domain->has_iotlb_device)
+ continue;
+
+ nested_flush_dev_iotlb(domain, addr, mask, &fault);
+ if (fault & (DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE))
+ break;
here you may add a note that we don't plan to forward invalidation
queue error (i.e. IQE) to the caller as it's caused only by driver
internal bug.
yes.
+
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(inv_entry.addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE) ||
+ ((inv_entry.npages == U64_MAX) && inv_entry.addr)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+
why is [non-zero-addr, U64_MAX] an error? Is it explicitly stated to
be not supported by underlying helpers?
no such limitation by underlying helpers. But in such case, the
addr+npages*PAGE_SIZE would exceed U64_MAX, this seems a bit
strange. But I'm fine to relax the check since the underlying helper
only checks npages when determining paid-selective or not.
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
