Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 18:41:15 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        aik@ozlabs.ru, robh@kernel.org, joe@perches.com,
        elfring@users.sourceforge.net, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au,
        jasowang@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxram@us.ibm.com,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org,
        srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] Virtio uses DMA API for all devices
Message-ID: <20180802182959-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20180727095804.GA25592@arm.com>
 <20180730093414.GD26245@infradead.org>
 <20180730125100-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20180730111802.GA9830@infradead.org>
 <20180730155633-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20180731173052.GA17153@infradead.org>
 <3d6e81511571260de1c8047aaffa8ac4df093d2e.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20180801081637.GA14438@arm.com>
 <20180801083639.GF26378@infradead.org>
 <26c1d3d50d8e081eed44fe9940fbefed34598cbd.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <26c1d3d50d8e081eed44fe9940fbefed34598cbd.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:24:57AM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 01:36 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We just need to figure out how to deal with devices that deviate
> > from the default.  One things is that VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM really
> > should become VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA to cover the cases of non-iommu
> > dma tweaks (offsets, cache flushing), which seems well in spirit of
> > the original design. 
> 
> I don't completely agree:
> 
> 1 - VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM is a property of the "other side", ie qemu
> for example. It indicates that the peer bypasses the normal platform
> iommu. The platform code in the guest has no real way to know that this
> is the case, this is a specific "feature" of the qemu implementation.
> 
> 2 - VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA (or whatever you want to call it), is a
> property of the guest platform itself (not qemu), there's no way the
> "peer" can advertize it via the virtio negociated flags. At least for
> us. I don't know for sure whether that would be workable for the ARM
> case. In our case, qemu has no idea at VM creation time that the VM
> will turn itself into a secure VM and thus will require bounce
> buffering for IOs (including virtio).
> 
> So unless we have another hook for the arch code to set
> VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA on selected (or all) virtio devices from the
> guest itself, I don't see that as a way to deal with it.
> 
> >  The other issue is VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > which is very vaguely defined, and which needs a better definition.
> > And last but not least we'll need some text explaining the challenges
> > of hardware devices - I think VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA + VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > is what would basically cover them, but a good description including
> > an explanation of why these matter.
> 
> Ben.
> 

So is it true that from qemu point of view there is nothing special
going on?  You pass in a PA, host writes there.


-- 
MST