Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/amd: Force identity mode for selected GPUs only

Vasant Hegde <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.iommu,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Bjorn,


On 7/23/2026 9:29 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:15:48AM +0000, Vasant Hegde wrote:
>> Certain AMD GPU's must always be in identity mode. Currently its enforced
>> using PASID check. It worked fine as most GPU's has PASID feature. But
>> this means, identity mode enforcement is done for all PASID capable devices.
> 
> I think it would be useful to know something about *why* these devices
> require identity mode.  And what happens without identity mode, i.e., is
> there a user-visible symptom that happens when the wrong mode is used?

I will have to check with Alex for the details. Will check with him.

> 
> Since the code doesn't test any feature bits, I assume it's because these
> devices have some hardware defect?
> 
> s/GPU's/GPUs/ (twice)
> s/Currently its/Currently it's/
> s/has PASID/have PASID/

Ack. Will fix it in v2.

> 
>> Previously it made sense as domain allocation API
>> (iommu_ops->domain_alloc()) was just passing domain type. So it couldn't
>> check device capability and decide best suited page table type (v1 or
>> v2). With recent enhancement to driver code, it uses
>> domain_alloc_paging_flags() ops for all paging mode domain allocation.
>> This can check device/flags and allocate best suited page table (v1 or v2).
>> Hence fix amd_iommu_def_domain_type() to force identity mapping for selected
>> GPUs only.
>>
>> With this change system booted with DMA translation mode will select:
>>  * Guest (v2) page table for PASID capable device
>>  * Host (v1) page table for non-PASID capable device
>>
>> Cc: Alex Deucher <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Mario Limonciello <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasant Hegde <[email protected]>
>> Tested-by: Amandeep Kaur Longia <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
>> index 563f9c2672d5..fe642e33c87d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
>> @@ -3112,6 +3112,32 @@ static bool amd_iommu_is_attach_deferred(struct device *dev)
>>  	return dev_data->defer_attach;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static bool quirks_force_identity_mapping(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct pci_dev *root_port;
>> +	int class = pdev->class >> 8;
>> +
>> +	/* AMD GPU vendor ID */
>> +	if (pdev->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/* GPU class */
>> +	if (class != PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA &&
>> +	    class != PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_OTHER)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	root_port = pcie_find_root_port(pdev);
>> +	if (!root_port)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/* If bridge vendor is not ATI then its APU and force IDENTITY mode */
> 
> s/its/it's/  "it's" == "it is"; "its" shows ownership

Ack. Will fix it in v2.

> 
>> +	if (root_port->vendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>> +	/* Rest all are dGPUs and works fine with DMA mode */
>> +	return false;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int amd_iommu_def_domain_type(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>>  	struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data;
>> @@ -3120,20 +3146,28 @@ static int amd_iommu_def_domain_type(struct device *dev)
>>  	if (!dev_data)
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>> +	if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>>  	/* Always use DMA domain for untrusted device */
>> -	if (dev_is_pci(dev) && to_pci_dev(dev)->untrusted)
>> +	if (to_pci_dev(dev)->untrusted)
>>  		return IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA;
> 
> This seems to apply a different rule to untrusted (e.g., removable) devices
> based on the topology, not the device itself.  What if one of these devices
> is used as an eGPU and thus uses IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA when it really needs
> IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY?

I tried to keep the existing order (untested followed by GPU check). As Mario
commented, we need identity for APU only. So this is fine.

-Vasant
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.