@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static irqreturn_t vu_req_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
}
break;
case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG:
- /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM */
+ /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM */
case
0644
> --- a/arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c
> +++ b/arch/um/drivers/virtio_uml.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static irqreturn_t vu_req_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
> }
> break;
> case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG:
> -
, void *data)
}
break;
case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG:
- /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM */
+ /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM */
case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_VRING_HOST_NOTIFIER_MSG:
/* not
, void *data)
}
break;
case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_IOTLB_MSG:
- /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM */
+ /* not supported - VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM */
case VHOST_USER_SLAVE_VRING_HOST_NOTIFIER_MSG:
/* not
On 2020/2/24 下午9:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] vhost: do not set VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM when IOMMU is not
used
We enable device IOTLB unconditionally when VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM is
negotiated. This lead unnecessary IOTLB miss/update transactions when
IOMMU is used. This
On 2020/2/24 下午9:56, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:26:20 +0800
Jason Wang wrote:
That's better.
How about attached?
Thanks
Thanks Jason! It does avoid the translation overhead in vhost.
Tested-by: Halil Pasic
Regarding the code, you fence it in virtio-net.c, but AFAIU this f
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:26:20 +0800
Jason Wang wrote:
> That's better.
>
> How about attached?
>
> Thanks
Thanks Jason! It does avoid the translation overhead in vhost.
Tested-by: Halil Pasic
Regarding the code, you fence it in virtio-net.c, but AFAIU this feature
has relevance for other vho
06, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > > > > > Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify
> > > > > &
Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in
6 +0800
> > > > Jason Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > > > Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
> > > > > > virtio devices and linux as the gu
protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
encryption/protection stuff if the guest decides to turn itself into
a protected one
devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
> > > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
> > > linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
> > > encryption/protection stuff if the guest decides to turn itself into
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:33:35PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > So it sounds like a host issue: the emulation of s390 unnecessarily
> > complicated.
> > Working around it by the guest looks wrong ...
>
> Yes. If your ho
ds to run a memory protection enabled VM with
> > > > virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
> > > > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
> > > > linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the me
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
encryption/protection stuff if the guest decides to turn itself into
a protected one. This however makes no sense due to multiple reasons:
* The device is not changed by the fact that the guest
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:33:35PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> So it sounds like a host issue: the emulation of s390 unnecessarily
> complicated.
> Working around it by the guest looks wrong ...
Yes. If your host (and I don't care if you split hypervisor, ultravisor
and megavisor out in y
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:22:26 +0800
Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
> > virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
> > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATF
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:33:35 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > For vhost-net the feature VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has the following side
> > effect The vhost code assumes it the addresses on the virtio de
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:29:50 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > * This usage is not congruent with standardised semantics of
> > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Guest memory protected is an orthogonal reason
On 2020/2/21 上午12:06, Halil Pasic wrote:
Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> For vhost-net the feature VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM has the following side
> effect The vhost code assumes it the addresses on the virtio descriptor
> ring are not guest physical addresses but iova's, and insists on doing a
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> * This usage is not congruent with standardised semantics of
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM. Guest memory protected is an orthogonal reason
> for using DMA API in virtio (orthogonal with respect to what is
>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:04PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
> virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
> linux use
Currently if one intends to run a memory protection enabled VM with
virtio devices and linux as the guest OS, one needs to specify the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag for each virtio device to make the guest
linux use the DMA API, which in turn handles the memory
encryption/protection stuff if the
terlist of addresses to be exact)
to the host.
So, I think no, this isn't going to work with the current code.
Should be possible to fix though. We need to define what "guest
physical address" should be with VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM enabled
(probably guest pci bus address) and add s
-legacy=on,iommu_platform=true,disable-modern=off,scsi=off
> >>...
> >>
> >> Cc: Jordan Justen
> >> Cc: Laszlo Ersek
> >> Cc: Jason Wang
> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin
> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>
Pass the VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM to tell the guest when a device is behind
an IOMMU.
Other feature bits in virtio do not depend on the device type and could be
factored the same way. For instance our vring implementation always
supports indirect descriptors (VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC), so we
> > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >
> > > > In commit 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device
> > > > quirk"),
> > > > you added a new feature bit (VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM) to describe
> > > > whether
> > >
irtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device
> > > quirk"),
> > > you added a new feature bit (VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM) to describe whether
> > > or not a given virtio device requires physical address or bus addresses.
> > >
> > > Is there a plan to get t
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:24:34AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > In commit 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk"),
> > you added a new fea
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> In commit 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk"),
> you added a new feature bit (VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM) to describe whether
> or not a given virtio device require
Hi Michael,
In commit 1a937693993f ("virtio: new feature to detect IOMMU device quirk"),
you added a new feature bit (VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM) to describe whether
or not a given virtio device requires physical address or bus addresses.
Is there a plan to get this incorporated into
32 matches
Mail list logo
