Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:16:33 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 13/20] x86: DMA support for memory encryption
Message-ID: <20161115211603-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20161110003426.3280.2999.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
 <20161110003723.3280.62636.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
 <20161115171443-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <4d97f998-5835-f4e0-9840-7f7979251275@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4d97f998-5835-f4e0-9840-7f7979251275@amd.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2378
Lines: 57

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:29:35PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 9:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:37:23PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >> Since DMA addresses will effectively look like 48-bit addresses when the
> >> memory encryption mask is set, SWIOTLB is needed if the DMA mask of the
> >> device performing the DMA does not support 48-bits. SWIOTLB will be
> >> initialized to create un-encrypted bounce buffers for use by these devices.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h |    5 ++-
> >>  arch/x86/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h |    5 +++
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c          |   11 ++++---
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/pci-nommu.c        |    2 +
> >>  arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb.c      |    8 ++++-
> >>  arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c          |   17 +++++++++++
> >>  include/linux/swiotlb.h            |    1 +
> >>  init/main.c                        |   13 ++++++++
> >>  lib/swiotlb.c                      |   58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>  9 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> >> index 4446162..c9cdcae 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/dma-mapping.h
> 
> ..SNIP...
> 
> >>  
> >> +/*
> >> + * If memory encryption is active, the DMA address for an encrypted page may
> >> + * be beyond the range of the device. If bounce buffers are required be sure
> >> + * that they are not on an encrypted page. This should be called before the
> >> + * iotlb area is used.
> > 
> > Makes sense, but I think at least a dmesg warning here
> > might be a good idea.
> 
> Good idea.  Should it be a warning when it is first being set up or
> a warning the first time the bounce buffers need to be used.  Or maybe
> both?
> 
> > 
> > A boot flag that says "don't enable devices that don't support
> > encryption" might be a good idea, too, since most people
> > don't read dmesg output and won't notice the message.
> 
> I'll look into this. It might be something that can be checked as
> part of the device setting its DMA mask or the first time a DMA
> API is used if the device doesn't explicitly set its mask.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> > 

I think setup time is nicer if it's possible.