Re: [RFC PATCH kernel] vfio: Skip checking for IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY on POWER and more

Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.kvm-ppc,org.kernel.vger.kvm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 2022-07-01 07:17, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> VFIO on POWER does not implement iommu_ops and therefore iommu_capable()
> always returns false and __iommu_group_alloc_blocking_domain() always
> fails.
> 
> iommu_group_claim_dma_owner() in setting container fails for the same
> reason - it cannot allocate a domain.
> 
> This skips the check for platforms supporting VFIO without implementing
> iommu_ops which to my best knowledge is POWER only.
> 
> This also allows setting container in absence of iommu_ops.
> 
> Fixes: 70693f470848 ("vfio: Set DMA ownership for VFIO devices")
> Fixes: e8ae0e140c05 ("vfio: Require that devices support DMA cache coherence")
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <[email protected]>
> ---
> 
> Not quite sure what the proper small fix is and implementing iommu_ops
> on POWER is not going to happen any time soon or ever :-/

FWIW I did wonder about this when writing [1]. Is it appropriate to have 
any IOMMU API specifics outside the type1 code, or should these bits be 
abstracted behind vfio_iommu_driver_ops methods?

Robin.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/4ea5eb64246f1ee188d1a61c3e93b37756932eb7.1656092606.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/

> 
> ---
>   drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 13 +++++++------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> index 61e71c1154be..71408ab26cd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.c
> @@ -605,7 +605,8 @@ int vfio_register_group_dev(struct vfio_device *device)
>   	 * VFIO always sets IOMMU_CACHE because we offer no way for userspace to
>   	 * restore cache coherency.
>   	 */
> -	if (!iommu_capable(device->dev->bus, IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY))
> +	if (device->dev->bus->iommu_ops &&
> +	    !iommu_capable(device->dev->bus, IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
>   	return __vfio_register_dev(device,
> @@ -934,7 +935,7 @@ static void __vfio_group_unset_container(struct vfio_group *group)
>   		driver->ops->detach_group(container->iommu_data,
>   					  group->iommu_group);
>   
> -	if (group->type = VFIO_IOMMU)
> +	if (group->type = VFIO_IOMMU && iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed(group->iommu_group))
>   		iommu_group_release_dma_owner(group->iommu_group);
>   
>   	group->container = NULL;
> @@ -1010,9 +1011,8 @@ static int vfio_group_set_container(struct vfio_group *group, int container_fd)
>   	}
>   
>   	if (group->type = VFIO_IOMMU) {
> -		ret = iommu_group_claim_dma_owner(group->iommu_group, f.file);
> -		if (ret)
> -			goto unlock_out;
> +		if (iommu_group_claim_dma_owner(group->iommu_group, f.file))
> +			pr_warn("Failed to claim DMA owner");
>   	}
>   
>   	driver = container->iommu_driver;
> @@ -1021,7 +1021,8 @@ static int vfio_group_set_container(struct vfio_group *group, int container_fd)
>   						group->iommu_group,
>   						group->type);
>   		if (ret) {
> -			if (group->type = VFIO_IOMMU)
> +			if (group->type = VFIO_IOMMU &&
> +			    iommu_group_dma_owner_claimed(group->iommu_group))
>   				iommu_group_release_dma_owner(
>   					group->iommu_group);
>   			goto unlock_out;
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.