On 2023/12/22 14:57, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Liu, Yi L yi.l.liu@intel.com Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM
+static void intel_nested_flush_cache(struct dmar_domain *domain, u64 addr,
unsigned long npages, u32 *error)+{
- struct iommu_domain_info *info;
- unsigned long i;
- unsigned mask;
- u32 fault = 0;
- if (npages == U64_MAX)
mask = 64 - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT;- else
mask = ilog2(__roundup_pow_of_two(npages));- xa_for_each(&domain->iommu_array, i, info) {
nested_flush_pasid_iotlb(info->iommu, domain, addr,npages, 0);
so IOMMU_VTD_INV_FLAGS_LEAF is defined but ignored?
yeah... it is. It is named as ih in the driver code. But it appears only the below code is set ih. When calling iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(), the 5th parameter (ih) may be true.
static int intel_iommu_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, void *v) { struct memory_notify *mhp = v; unsigned long start_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn); unsigned long last_vpfn = mm_to_dma_pfn(mhp->start_pfn + mhp->nr_pages - 1);
switch (val) { case MEM_GOING_ONLINE: if (iommu_domain_identity_map(si_domain, start_vpfn, last_vpfn)) { pr_warn("Failed to build identity map for [%lx-%lx]\n", start_vpfn, last_vpfn); return NOTIFY_BAD; } break;
case MEM_OFFLINE: case MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE: { struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd; struct intel_iommu *iommu; LIST_HEAD(freelist);
domain_unmap(si_domain, start_vpfn, last_vpfn, &freelist);
rcu_read_lock(); for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, si_domain, start_vpfn, mhp->nr_pages, list_empty(&freelist), 0); rcu_read_unlock(); put_pages_list(&freelist); } break; }
return NOTIFY_OK; }
if (domain->has_iotlb_device)continue;nested_flush_dev_iotlb(domain, addr, mask, &fault);if (fault & (DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE))break;here you may add a note that we don't plan to forward invalidation queue error (i.e. IQE) to the caller as it's caused only by driver internal bug.
yes.
if (!IS_ALIGNED(inv_entry.addr, VTD_PAGE_SIZE) ||((inv_entry.npages == U64_MAX) && inv_entry.addr)) {ret = -EINVAL;break;}why is [non-zero-addr, U64_MAX] an error? Is it explicitly stated to be not supported by underlying helpers?
no such limitation by underlying helpers. But in such case, the addr+npages*PAGE_SIZE would exceed U64_MAX, this seems a bit strange. But I'm fine to relax the check since the underlying helper only checks npages when determining paid-selective or not.