Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 22:16:47 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Keir Fraser <keirf@google.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: Force DMA restricted devices through DMA API
Message-ID: <YtePv+AT+pqD2wHe@infradead.org>
References: <20220719100256.419780-1-keirf@google.com>
 <YtbMcBw4l0LAFn9+@infradead.org>
 <YtbRwO40CmIRWOUR@google.com>
 <YtbTGjRw65QEKkQA@infradead.org>
 <YtbXxl8STUtQkacb@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YtbXxl8STUtQkacb@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 04:11:50PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Well here are two possible approaches:
> 
> 1. Revert e41b1355508d outright. I'm not even sure what it would mean
> for reported pages to go through IOMMU. And VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> is no longer IOMMU-specific anyway.
> 
> 2. Continue to clear the flag during virtio_balloon negotiation, but
> remember that it was offered, and test for that in vring_use_dma_api()
> as well as, or instead of, virtio_has_dma_quirk().
> 
> Do either of those appeal?

I'll have to defer to people that actually understand the virtio_balloon
code, because I haven't evey seriously looked at it.