Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79068-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:58:03 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-team@android.com" <kernel-team@android.com>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev"
	<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Marek Szyprowski
	<m.szyprowski@samsung.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Petr Tesarik
	<petr.tesarik1@huawei-partners.com>, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] iommu/dma: Force swiotlb_max_mapping_size on an
 untrusted device
Message-ID: <Zdj4y7nqF2LHq2IH@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20240221113504.7161-1-will@kernel.org>
 <20240221113504.7161-6-will@kernel.org>
 <SN6PR02MB4157828120FB7D3408CEC991D4572@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR02MB4157828120FB7D3408CEC991D4572@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2024 19:58:26.8461
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7303f021-d8d1-482f-c5aa-08dc34a9cce4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource:
	BN2PEPF000044A9.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH0PR12MB7814

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:39:29PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3:35 AM
> > +static size_t iommu_dma_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +     if (is_swiotlb_active(dev) && dev_is_untrusted(dev))
> > +             return swiotlb_max_mapping_size(dev);
> > +     return SIZE_MAX;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> In this [1] email, Nicolin had a version of this function that incorporated
> the IOMMU granule.  For granules bigger than 4K, I think that's needed
> so that when IOMMU code sets the swiotlb alloc_align_mask to the
> IOMMU granule - 1, the larger offset plus the size won't exceed the
> max number of slots.  swiotlb_max_mapping_size() by itself may
> return a value that's too big when alloc_align_mask is used.
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/SN6PR02MB415727E61B5295C259CCB268D4512@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com/T/#m14dd359c5a4dd13e6cb0c35cf94f8d746257ae48

Yea, I just confirmed that with 64KB PAGE_SIZE the alloc_size
can be over swiotlb_max_mapping_size, i.e. 256KB > 252KB. Yet,
the max size corresponding to the max number of slots should
be 256KB. So, I feel that this is marginally safe?

With that being said, there seems to be a 4KB size waste, due
to aligning with the iommu_domain granule, in this particular
alloc_size=256KB case?

On the other hand, if swiotlb_max_mapping_size was subtracted
by 64KB (granule=64KB), i.e. alloc_size=192KB, which seems to
generate more swiotlb fragments?

Thanks
Nicolin