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;
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] iommu: Reserved regions for IOVAs beyond dma_mask and
 iommu aperture
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, joro@8bytes.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
References: <20200928195037.22654-1-eric.auger@redhat.com>
 <20200928164224.12350d84@w520.home>
 <1cbaf3e7-cf88-77f6-4cc4-46dcd60eb649@redhat.com>
 <20200929121849.455af184@w520.home>
 <20201005104410.GA12138@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20201005130852.GB2163@lst.de>
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1b5102d6-2a85-e73a-4676-63b1228f7144@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:41:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201005130852.GB2163@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi all,

On 10/5/20 3:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:44:10AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> I see that there are both OF and ACPI hooks in pci_dma_configure() and
>>> both modify dev->dma_mask, which is what pci-sysfs is exposing here,
>>> but I'm not convinced this even does what it's intended to do.  The
>>> driver core calls this via the bus->dma_configure callback before
>>> probing a driver, but then what happens when the driver calls
>>> pci_set_dma_mask()?  This is just a wrapper for dma_set_mask() and I
>>> don't see anywhere that would take into account the existing
>>> dev->dma_mask.  It seems for example that pci_dma_configure() could
>>> produce a 42 bit mask as we have here, then the driver could override
>>> that with anything that the dma_ops.dma_supported() callback finds
>>> acceptable, and I don't see any instances where the current
>>> dev->dma_mask is considered.  Am I overlooking something? 
>>
>> I don't think so but Christoph and Robin can provide more input on
>> this - it is a long story.
>>
>> ACPI and OF bindings set a default dma_mask (and dev->bus_dma_limit),
>> this does not prevent a driver from overriding the dev->dma_mask but DMA
>> mapping code still takes into account the dev->bus_dma_limit.
>>
>> This may help:
>>
>> git log -p 03bfdc31176c

Thank you Lorenzo for the pointer.
> 
> This is at best a historic artefact.  Bus drivers have no business
> messing with the DMA mask, dev->bus_dma_limit is the way to communicate
> addressing limits on the bus (or another interconnect closer to the CPU).
> 
Then could I envision to use the dev->bus_dma_limit instead of the
dev->dma_mask?

Nevertheless, I would need a way to let the userspace know that the
usable IOVA ranges reported by VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_INFO_CAP_IOVA_RANGE
takes into account the addressing limits of the bus.

Thanks

Eric