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] dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain
 DMA masks
To:     "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lianbo Jiang <lijiang@redhat.com>
References: <10b83d9ff31bca88e94da2ff34e30619eb396078.1562785123.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 <20190724155530.hlingpcirjcf2ljg@box>
 <acee0a74-77fc-9c81-087b-ce55abf87bd4@amd.com>
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Message-ID: <a89e7574-096d-9105-45ff-34bbb74918a5@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:06:11 +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: <acee0a74-77fc-9c81-087b-ce55abf87bd4@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 24/07/2019 17:42, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 7/24/19 10:55 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:01:19PM +0000, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
>>> @@ -351,6 +355,32 @@ bool sev_active(void)
>>>   }
>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(sev_active);
>>>   
>>> +/* Override for DMA direct allocation check - ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED */
>>> +bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (sev_active())
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
>>> +	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
>>> +	 * encryption mask.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (sme_active()) {
>>> +		u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
>>> +		u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
>>> +						dev->bus_dma_mask);
>>> +
>>> +		if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
>>> +			return true;
>>
>> Hm. What is wrong with the dev mask being equal to enc mask? IIUC, it
>> means that device mask is wide enough to cover encryption bit, doesn't it?
> 
> Not really...  it's the way DMA_BIT_MASK works vs bit numbering. Let's say
> that sme_me_mask has bit 47 set. __ffs64 returns 47 and DMA_BIT_MASK(47)
> will generate a mask without bit 47 set (0x7fffffffffff). So the check
> will catch anything that does not support at least 48-bit DMA.

Couldn't that be expressed as just:

	if (sme_me_mask & dma_dev_mask == sme_me_mask)

?

Robin.