Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1385315
| From | Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP |
| Date | 2016-04-22 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rqLvd-49a-49@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rpHDj-1Ya-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpHDj-1Ya-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqHhU-14S-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqHKV-1ip-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 22/04/16 12:39, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Robin, > On 04/22/2016 01:16 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: >> Hi Eric, Alex, >> >> On 19/04/16 18:24, Eric Auger wrote: >>> Do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP for arm-smmu(-v3). Indeed the >>> irq_remapping capability is abstracted on irqchip side for ARM as >>> opposed to Intel IOMMU featuring IRQ remapping HW. >>> >>> So to check IRQ remapping capability, the msi domain needs to be >>> checked instead. >>> >>> This commit needs to be applied after "vfio/type1: also check IRQ >>> remapping capability at msi domain" else the legacy interrupt >>> assignment gets broken with arm-smmu. >> >> Hmm, that smells of papering over a different problem. I may have missed >> it, but I don't see anything changing legacy interrupt behaviour in this >> series - are legacy INTx (or platform) interrupts intrinsically safe >> because they're physically wired, or intrinsically unsafe because they >> could be shared? > > I think it is safe. With legacy/platform interrupts we have: > vfio pci driver physical IRQ handler signals an irqfd. > upon this irqfd signaling KVM injects a virtual IRQ. > > So the assigned device does not have any way to trigger a storm of > interrupts on the host, as opposed to with MSI. > > Does it make sense to you? I think so, thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'm strongly in favour of applying this patch and un-breaking legacy interrupts regardless of MSI support. I'll keep investigating to see what I can figure out. Robin. > Best Regards > > Eric > > If it's the latter then I don't see how the IOMMU or >> MSI controller changes anything in that respect, and if it's the former >> then surely we should support that right now without the SMMU having to >> lie about MSI isolation? I started looking into it but I'm a bit lost... >> >> Robin. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 3 ++- >>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 3 ++- >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>> index afd0dac..1d0106c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>> @@ -1386,7 +1386,8 @@ static bool arm_smmu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap) >>> case IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY: >>> return true; >>> case IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP: >>> - return true; /* MSIs are just memory writes */ >>> + /* interrupt translation handled at MSI controller level */ >>> + return false; >>> case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC: >>> return true; >>> default: >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c >>> index 492339f..6232b2a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c >>> @@ -1312,7 +1312,8 @@ static bool arm_smmu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap) >>> */ >>> return true; >>> case IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP: >>> - return true; /* MSIs are just memory writes */ >>> + /* interrupt translation handled at MSI controller level */ >>> + return false; >>> case IOMMU_CAP_NOEXEC: >>> return true; >>> default: >>> >> >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org> - 2016-04-22 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu: do not advertise IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 17:50 +0200
csiph-web