Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] dma-buf: heaps: Add support for Tegra VPR

On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 02:56:05PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 07:25:20PM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 05:54:27PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > From: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
> > > 
> > > NVIDIA Tegra SoCs commonly define a Video-Protection-Region, which is a
> > > region of memory dedicated to content-protected video decode and
> > > playback. This memory cannot be accessed by the CPU and only certain
> > > hardware devices have access to it.
> > > 
> > > Expose the VPR as a DMA heap so that applications and drivers can
> > > allocate buffers from this region for use-cases that require this kind
> > > of protected memory.
> > > 
> > > VPR has a few very critical peculiarities. First, it must be a single
> > > contiguous region of memory (there is a single pair of registers that
> > > set the base address and size of the region), which is configured by
> > > calling back into the secure monitor. The memory region also needs to
> > > quite large for some use-cases because it needs to fit multiple video
> > > frames (8K video should be supported), so VPR sizes of ~2 GiB are
> > > expected. However, some devices cannot afford to reserve this amount
> > > of memory for a particular use-case, and therefore the VPR must be
> > > resizable.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, resizing the VPR is slightly tricky because the GPU found
> > > on Tegra SoCs must be in reset during the VPR resize operation. This is
> > > currently implemented by freezing all userspace processes and calling
> > > invoking the GPU's freeze() implementation, resizing and the thawing the
> > > GPU and userspace processes. This is quite heavy-handed, so eventually
> > > it might be better to implement thawing/freezing in the GPU driver in
> > > such a way that they block accesses to the GPU so that the VPR resize
> > > operation can happen without suspending all userspace.
> > > 
> > > In order to balance the memory usage versus the amount of resizing that
> > > needs to happen, the VPR is divided into multiple chunks. Each chunk is
> > > implemented as a CMA area that is completely allocated on first use to
> > > guarantee the contiguity of the VPR. Once all buffers from a chunk have
> > > been freed, the CMA area is deallocated and the memory returned to the
> > > system.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I believe we (the Android team) are trying to solve similar issue to yours: Arm
> > CPUs can still speculatively read memory after it has been transitioned to the
> > Secure state, as long as they retain a cacheable mapping to it.
> > 
> > As modifying the direct mapping is difficult, the workaround ended up in the
> > hypervisor which unmaps the pages from the host stage-2 on intercepted FF-A Lend
> > invocations.
> > 
> > If convenient, this is nonetheless the wrong place to do it. Scattering the host
> > stage-2 is really terrible for performance and we would like to move it where it
> > should be, directly into the kernel...
> > 
> > This is what I thought was the attempt in v3, but I am now a bit confused
> > because I see you are using set_direct_map_invalid_noflush()
> > set_direct_map_default_noflush(), but I am not sure that works if rodata=full is
> > not set? So does the memory for the NVIDIA IP still need to be unmapped?
> 
> Yeah, this currently relies on the circumstances being such that
> can_set_direct_map() returns true, and in the case where we want to use
> the resizable VPR functionality, we're going to have page-granular
> mappings anyway.
> 
> > If so, how about having an option where the CMA allocation is backed by a direct
> > map with the same page granularity, or at least a smaller and aligned granule?
> > 
> > With that, we know that for whatever CMA allocation we do, we can safely unmap
> > from the direct map without risking splitting blocks. On CMA free, we can safely
> > remap into the direct map as I do not believe we coalesce yet.
> 
> This sounds intriguing. For VPR we could possibly make the size a
> multiple of the memblock size (or whatever might be appropriate). If we
> can create a page-granular linear mapping specifically for that region,
> that'd be ideal. I don't know if the linear mapping can be subdivided in
> this fashion, though.

Actually I don't think modifying the memblock is necessary at all!

Here's what I have so far:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
index d4de88770ecf..a9f81413b70d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
 #include <linux/fs.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
+#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/set_memory.h>
 #include <linux/kfence.h>
@@ -1138,6 +1139,27 @@ static inline void arm64_kfence_map_pool(void) { }
 
 #endif /* CONFIG_KFENCE */
 
+#define MAX_FORCE_PTE_REGIONS 64 /* Greater or equal to MAX_RESERVED_REGIONS */
+
+static struct {
+       phys_addr_t start;
+       phys_addr_t end;
+} force_pte_regions[MAX_FORCE_PTE_REGIONS] __initdata;
+
+void __init early_init_dt_force_pte_arch(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
+{
+       static int count;
+
+       if (force_pte_mapping())
+               return;
+
+       if (count >= MAX_FORCE_PTE_REGIONS)
+               return;
+
+       force_pte_regions[count].start = start;
+       force_pte_regions[count++].end = end;
+}
+
 static void __init map_mem(void)
 {
        static const u64 direct_map_end = _PAGE_END(VA_BITS_MIN);
@@ -1186,6 +1208,15 @@ static void __init map_mem(void)
        __map_memblock(init_end, kernel_end, pgprot_tagged(PAGE_KERNEL),
                       flags);
 
+       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(force_pte_regions); i++) {
+               if (!force_pte_regions[i].end)
+                       break;
+
+               __map_memblock(force_pte_regions[i].start, force_pte_regions[i].end,
+                              pgprot_tagged(PAGE_KERNEL),
+                              flags | NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS | NO_CONT_MAPPINGS);
+       }
+
        /* map all the memory banks */
        for_each_mem_range(i, &start, &end) {
                /*
diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
index 42e3e2d8a2b8..445f204f01e4 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
@@ -136,6 +136,8 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_reserve_memory(phys_addr_t base,
        return memblock_reserve(base, size);
 }
 
+void __weak early_init_dt_force_pte_arch(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end) { }
+
 /*
  * __reserved_mem_reserve_reg() - reserve memory described in the
  * first entry in 'reg' property
@@ -168,6 +170,9 @@ static int __init __reserved_mem_reserve_reg(unsigned long node,
        size = s;
 
        if (size && early_init_dt_reserve_memory(base, size, nomap) == 0) {
+               if (of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "force-pte", NULL))
+                       early_init_dt_force_pte_arch(base, base + size);
+
                fdt_fixup_reserved_mem_node(node, base, size);
                pr_debug("Reserved memory: reserved region for node '%s': base %pa, size %lu MiB\n",
                         uname, &base, (unsigned long)(size / SZ_1M));
@@ -517,6 +522,9 @@ static int __init __reserved_mem_alloc_size(unsigned long node, const char *unam
                return -ENOMEM;
        }
 
+       if (of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "force-pte", NULL))
+               early_init_dt_force_pte_arch(base, base + size);
+
        fdt_fixup_reserved_mem_node(node, base, size);
        fdt_init_reserved_mem_node(node, uname, base, size);
diff --git a/include/linux/of_fdt.h b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
index 51dadbaa3d63..6c73c76dee1b 100644
--- a/include/linux/of_fdt.h
+++ b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ extern void early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range(void);
 extern int early_init_dt_scan_chosen_stdout(void);
 extern void early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(void);
 extern void early_init_fdt_reserve_self(void);
+extern void early_init_dt_force_pte_arch(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end);
 extern void early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size);
 extern u64 dt_mem_next_cell(int s, const __be32 **cellp);
 
> 
> > (This alignment is not necessary for upcoming systems with BBML3)
> > 
> > However, to implement this, we'd need to split memblocks and I believe the only
> > way at the moment is temporarily mark it as "nomap" which didn't seem very
> > popular in the comments on v3.
> 
> Could this be simplified if this type of allocation is always memblock
> aligned?
> 
> Looking at map_mem(), it seems like we could add some sort of special-
> casing in the for_each_mem_range() block to check if the memory is VPR
> (or generic, page-granular carveout, or whatever we want to call it) and
> set NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS | NO_CONT_MAPPINGS in that case.
> 
> If that works, set_direct_map_*() could be enhanced to detect such cases
> and always work. Or perhaps a more specific API could be introduced.
> 
> Thierry

for set_direct_map() I think we could extend it to check if it is mapped at the
PTE-level and if it is we can proceed?

I am currently looking at extending CMA with an option "unmap-on-alloc;" that
would only be available if CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP, or
cma_set_unmap_on_alloc, or if "force-pte;" is set. 

Hopefully I can share something this week.

-- 
Vincent