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;
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] swiotlb: Factor out slot allocation and free
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
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>
 <c044c51a-d348-ca37-3eaa-5475e3fec6c9@arm.com>
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <998eadf0-0435-1a6b-7234-71554d95bb70@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 09:47:53 +0800
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: <c044c51a-d348-ca37-3eaa-5475e3fec6c9@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Robin,

On 4/30/19 5:53 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> 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.

Yes, agreed.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu