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:   Fri, 29 Nov 2019 01:57:55 +0000
From:   Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio_ring: fix return code on DMA mapping fails
Message-ID: <20191129015730.GA13084@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
References: <20191114124646.74790-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <20191119121022.03aed69a.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <20191119080420-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20191122140827.0ead345c.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <1ec7c229-6c4f-9351-efda-ed2df20f95f6@amd.com>
 <20191126184527.GA10481@lst.de>
 <20191128004225.GA11539@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20191128070538.GB20274@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191128070538.GB20274@lst.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d3d0f977-799b-4732-5b91-08d7746f90db
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2019 01:58:02.0689
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: RJDv0xbU4KCNcZpWwcwhdJQlmiYY9o8L2MuCEE6s+9KZfCzu/kcw57Jv3x9uQEBzaNxZSDEWp1FktRF76Ck5IQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR12MB4075
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:05:38AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:42:25AM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > Why can't we leverage CMA instead of SWIOTLB for DMA when SEV is
> > enabled, CMA is well integerated with the DMA subsystem and handles
> > encrypted pages when force_dma_unencrypted() returns TRUE. 
> > 
> > Though, CMA might face the same issues as SWIOTLB bounce buffers, it's
> > size is similarly setup statically as SWIOTLB does or can be set as a 
> > percentage of the available system memory.
> 
> How is CMA integrated with SEV?  CMA just gives a contiguous chunk
> of memory, which still needs to be remapped as unencrypted before
> returning it to the user.

Looking at the implementation, i see that CMA is accessible using
dma_alloc_coherent() and the buffer allocated by dma_alloc_coherent()
either using the CMA or the page allocator, will be marked/tagged as
unencrypted and returned to the user.

But for dma_map_xx() interfaces, the memory will need be remapped as
unencrypted memory (as you mentioned).

Thanks,
Ashish