LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, joro@8bytes.org,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dwmw2@infradead.org, robin.murphy@arm.com
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
	shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com,
	jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/vt-d: Differentiate relaxable and non relaxable RMRRs
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:34:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <13a77738-5e85-ea62-aab1-384c75bde8bd@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190528115025.17194-8-eric.auger@redhat.com>

Hi,

On 5/28/19 7:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> Now we have a new IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE reserved memory
> region type, let's report USB and GFX RMRRs as relaxable ones.
> 
> We introduce a new device_rmrr_is_relaxable() helper to check
> whether the rmrr belongs to the relaxable category.
> 
> This allows to have a finer reporting at IOMMU API level of
> reserved memory regions. This will be exploitable by VFIO to
> define the usable IOVA range and detect potential conflicts
> between the guest physical address space and host reserved
> regions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> v3 -> v4:
> - introduce device_rmrr_is_relaxable and reshuffle the comments
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> index 9302351818ab..01c82f848470 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c
> @@ -2920,6 +2920,36 @@ static bool device_has_rmrr(struct device *dev)
>   	return false;
>   }
>   
> +/*
> + * device_rmrr_is_relaxable - Test whether the RMRR of this device
> + * is relaxable (ie. is allowed to be not enforced under some conditions)
> + *
> + * @dev: device handle
> + *
> + * We assume that PCI USB devices with RMRRs have them largely
> + * for historical reasons and that the RMRR space is not actively used post
> + * boot.  This exclusion may change if vendors begin to abuse it.
> + *
> + * The same exception is made for graphics devices, with the requirement that
> + * any use of the RMRR regions will be torn down before assigning the device
> + * to a guest.
> + *
> + * Return: true if the RMRR is relaxable
> + */
> +static bool device_rmrr_is_relaxable(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev;
> +
> +	if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> +	if (IS_USB_DEVICE(pdev) || IS_GFX_DEVICE(pdev))
> +		return true;
> +	else
> +		return false;
> +}

I know this is only code refactoring. But strictly speaking, the rmrr of
any USB host device is ignorable only if quirk_usb_early_handoff() has
been called. There, the control of USB host controller will be handed
over from BIOS to OS and the corresponding SMI are disabled.

This function is registered in drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c

DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_FINAL(PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,
                         PCI_CLASS_SERIAL_USB, 8, quirk_usb_early_handoff);

and only get compiled if CONFIG_USB_PCI is enabled.

Hence, it's safer to say:

+#ifdef CONFIG_USB_PCI
+	if (IS_USB_DEVICE(pdev))
+		return true;
+#endif /* CONFIG_USB_PCI */

I am okay if we keep this untouched and make this change within a
separated patch.

> +
>   /*
>    * There are a couple cases where we need to restrict the functionality of
>    * devices associated with RMRRs.  The first is when evaluating a device for
> @@ -2934,25 +2964,16 @@ static bool device_has_rmrr(struct device *dev)
>    * We therefore prevent devices associated with an RMRR from participating in
>    * the IOMMU API, which eliminates them from device assignment.
>    *
> - * In both cases we assume that PCI USB devices with RMRRs have them largely
> - * for historical reasons and that the RMRR space is not actively used post
> - * boot.  This exclusion may change if vendors begin to abuse it.
> - *
> - * The same exception is made for graphics devices, with the requirement that
> - * any use of the RMRR regions will be torn down before assigning the device
> - * to a guest.
> + * In both cases, devices which have relaxable RMRRs are not concerned by this
> + * restriction. See device_rmrr_is_relaxable comment.
>    */
>   static bool device_is_rmrr_locked(struct device *dev)
>   {
>   	if (!device_has_rmrr(dev))
>   		return false;
>   
> -	if (dev_is_pci(dev)) {
> -		struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> -
> -		if (IS_USB_DEVICE(pdev) || IS_GFX_DEVICE(pdev))
> -			return false;
> -	}
> +	if (device_rmrr_is_relaxable(dev))
> +		return false;
>   
>   	return true;
>   }
> @@ -5494,6 +5515,7 @@ static void intel_iommu_get_resv_regions(struct device *device,
>   		for_each_active_dev_scope(rmrr->devices, rmrr->devices_cnt,
>   					  i, i_dev) {
>   			struct iommu_resv_region *resv;
> +			enum iommu_resv_type type;
>   			size_t length;
>   
>   			if (i_dev != device &&
> @@ -5501,9 +5523,12 @@ static void intel_iommu_get_resv_regions(struct device *device,
>   				continue;
>   
>   			length = rmrr->end_address - rmrr->base_address + 1;
> +
> +			type = device_rmrr_is_relaxable(device) ?
> +				IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE : IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT;
> +
>   			resv = iommu_alloc_resv_region(rmrr->base_address,
> -						       length, prot,
> -						       IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT);
> +						       length, prot, type);
>   			if (!resv)
>   				break;
>   
> 

Other looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>

Best regards,
Baolu

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-29  2:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-28 11:50 [PATCH v5 0/7] RMRR related fixes and enhancements Eric Auger
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] iommu: Fix a leak in iommu_insert_resv_region Eric Auger
2019-05-29  6:17   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 15:38     ` Auger Eric
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] iommu/vt-d: Duplicate iommu_resv_region objects per device list Eric Auger
2019-05-29  2:04   ` Lu Baolu
2019-05-29 15:40     ` Auger Eric
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] iommu/vt-d: Introduce is_downstream_to_pci_bridge helper Eric Auger
2019-05-29  2:11   ` Lu Baolu
2019-05-29  6:21   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-29 15:43     ` Auger Eric
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] iommu/vt-d: Handle RMRR with PCI bridge device scopes Eric Auger
2019-05-29  2:12   ` Lu Baolu
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] iommu/vt-d: Handle PCI bridge RMRR device scopes in intel_iommu_get_resv_regions Eric Auger
2019-05-29  2:13   ` Lu Baolu
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] iommu: Introduce IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE reserved memory regions Eric Auger
2019-05-28 11:50 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/vt-d: Differentiate relaxable and non relaxable RMRRs Eric Auger
2019-05-29  2:34   ` Lu Baolu [this message]
2019-05-29 15:43     ` Auger Eric

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=13a77738-5e85-ea62-aab1-384c75bde8bd@linux.intel.com \
    --to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=eric.auger.pro@gmail.com \
    --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] iommu/vt-d: Differentiate relaxable and non relaxable RMRRs' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).