Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:34:56 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, jgross@suse.com,
        konrad.wilk@oracle.com, jasowang@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-imx@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: introduce xen_vring_use_dma
Message-ID: <20200701133456.GA23888@infradead.org>
References: <20200624091732.23944-1-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20200624050355-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006241047010.8121@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
 <20200624163940-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006241351430.8121@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
 <20200624181026-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006251014230.8121@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
 <20200626110629-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006291621300.8121@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006291621300.8121@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:46:09PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > I could imagine some future Xen hosts setting a flag somewhere in the
> > platform capability saying "no xen specific flag, rely on
> > "VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM". Then you set that accordingly in QEMU.
> > How about that?
> 
> Yes, that would be fine and there is no problem implementing something
> like that when we get virtio support in Xen. Today there are still no
> virtio interfaces provided by Xen to ARM guests (no virtio-block/net,
> etc.)
> 
> In fact, in both cases we are discussing virtio is *not* provided by
> Xen; it is a firmware interface to something entirely different:
> 
> 1) virtio is used to talk to a remote AMP processor (RPMesg)
> 2) virtio is used to talk to a secure-world firmware/OS (Trusty)
>
> VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is not set by Xen in these cases but by RPMesg
> and by Trusty respectively. I don't know if Trusty should or should not
> set VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM, but I think Linux should still work
> without issues.
> 

Any virtio implementation that is not in control of the memory map
(aka not the hypervisor) absolutely must set VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM,
else it is completely broken.

> The xen_domain() check in Linux makes it so that vring_use_dma_api
> returns the opposite value on native Linux compared to Linux as Xen/ARM
> DomU by "accident". By "accident" because there is no architectural
> reason why Linux Xen/ARM DomU should behave differently compared to
> native Linux in this regard.
> 
> I hope that now it is clearer why I think the if (xen_domain()) check
> needs to be improved anyway, even if we fix generic dma_ops with virtio
> interfaces missing VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM.

IMHO that Xen quirk should never have been added in this form..