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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] swiotlb: Factor out slot allocation and free
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, ashok.raj@intel.com,
        jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, alan.cox@intel.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
        mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, pengfei.xu@intel.com,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190421011719.14909-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20190421011719.14909-3-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20190422164555.GA31181@lst.de>
 <0c6e5983-312b-0d6b-92f5-64861cd6804d@linux.intel.com>
 <20190423061232.GB12762@lst.de>
 <dff50b2c-5e31-8b4a-7fdf-99d17852746b@linux.intel.com>
 <20190424144532.GA21480@lst.de>
 <a189444b-15c9-8069-901d-8cdf9af7fc3c@linux.intel.com>
 <20190426150433.GA19930@lst.de>
 <93b3d627-782d-cae0-2175-77a5a8b3fe6e@linux.intel.com>
 <90182d27-5764-7676-8ca6-b2773a40cfe1@arm.com>
 <1361b6ab-c3cf-d8ab-5f6b-9d9b7797bf02@linux.intel.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <c044c51a-d348-ca37-3eaa-5475e3fec6c9@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:53:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1361b6ab-c3cf-d8ab-5f6b-9d9b7797bf02@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 30/04/2019 03:02, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> 
> On 4/29/19 7:06 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 29/04/2019 06:10, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> Hi Christoph,
>>>
>>> On 4/26/19 11:04 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:07:19AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>>> This is not VT-d specific. It's just how generic IOMMU works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally, IOMMU works in paging mode. So if a driver issues DMA with
>>>>> IOVA  0xAAAA0123, IOMMU can remap it with a physical address 
>>>>> 0xBBBB0123.
>>>>> But we should never expect IOMMU to remap 0xAAAA0123 with physical
>>>>> address of 0xBBBB0000. That's the reason why I said that IOMMU will 
>>>>> not
>>>>> work there.
>>>>
>>>> Well, with the iommu it doesn't happen.  With swiotlb it obviosuly
>>>> can happen, so drivers are fine with it.  Why would that suddenly
>>>> become an issue when swiotlb is called from the iommu code?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would say IOMMU is DMA remapping, not DMA engine. :-)
>>
>> I'm not sure I really follow the issue here - if we're copying the 
>> buffer to the bounce page(s) there's no conceptual difference from 
>> copying it to SWIOTLB slot(s), so there should be no need to worry 
>> about the original in-page offset.
>>
>>  From the reply up-thread I guess you're trying to include an 
>> optimisation to only copy the head and tail of the buffer if it spans 
>> multiple pages, and directly map the ones in the middle, but AFAICS 
>> that's going to tie you to also using strict mode for TLB maintenance, 
>> which may not be a win overall depending on the balance between 
>> invalidation bandwidth vs. memcpy bandwidth. At least if we use 
>> standard SWIOTLB logic to always copy the whole thing, we should be 
>> able to release the bounce pages via the flush queue to allow 'safe' 
>> lazy unmaps.
>>
> 
> With respect, even we use the standard SWIOTLB logic, we need to use
> the strict mode for TLB maintenance.
> 
> Say, some swiotbl slots are used by untrusted device for bounce page
> purpose. When the device driver unmaps the IOVA, the slots are freed but
> the mapping is still cached in IOTLB, hence the untrusted device is 
> still able to access the slots. Then the slots are allocated to other
> devices. This makes it possible for the untrusted device to access
> the data buffer of other devices.

Sure, that's indeed how it would work right now - however since the 
bounce pages will be freed and reused by the DMA API layer itself (at 
the same level as the IOVAs) I see no technical reason why we couldn't 
investigate deferred freeing as a future optimisation.

Robin.