>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/virtio/vhost: Disable IOTLB callbacks when IOMMU gets
>disabled
>
>On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:01 PM Duan, Zhenzhong
><zhenzhong.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
>> >Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/virtio/vhost: Disable IOTLB callbacks when IOMMU
>gets
>> >disabled
>> >
>> >On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:30 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:44 AM Duan, Zhenzhong
>> >> <zhenzhong.d...@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >-----Original Message-----
>> >> > >From: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>> >> > >Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/virtio/vhost: Disable IOTLB callbacks when
>IOMMU
>> >gets
>> >> > >disabled
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Hi Jason,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >On 1/23/25 2:34 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> >> > >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 3:55 PM Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> > >>> Hi Jason,
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> On 1/22/25 8:17 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> >> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:25 AM Eric Auger
><eric.au...@redhat.com>
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> > >>>>> Hi Jason,
>> >> > >>>>>
>> >> > >>>>> On 1/21/25 4:27 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:33 AM Eric Auger
><eric.au...@redhat.com>
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>>> When a guest exposed with a vhost device and protected by an
>> >> > >>>>>>> intel IOMMU gets rebooted, we sometimes observe a spurious
>> >warning:
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> Fail to lookup the translated address ffffe000
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> We observe that the IOMMU gets disabled through a write to the
>> >global
>> >> > >>>>>>> command register (CMAR_GCMD.TE) before the vhost device
>gets
>> >> > >stopped.
>> >> > >>>>>>> When this warning happens it can be observed an inflight IOTLB
>> >> > >>>>>>> miss occurs after the IOMMU disable and before the vhost stop.
>In
>> >> > >>>>>>> that case a flat translation occurs and the check in
>> >> > >>>>>>> vhost_memory_region_lookup() fails.
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> Let's disable the IOTLB callbacks when all IOMMU MRs have been
>> >> > >>>>>>> unregistered.
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>> >> > >>>>>>> ---
>> >> > >>>>>>> hw/virtio/vhost.c | 4 ++++
>> >> > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> >> > >>>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> > >>>>>>> index 6aa72fd434..128c2ab094 100644
>> >> > >>>>>>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> > >>>>>>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> > >>>>>>> @@ -931,6 +931,10 @@ static void
>> >> > >vhost_iommu_region_del(MemoryListener *listener,
>> >> > >>>>>>> break;
>> >> > >>>>>>> }
>> >> > >>>>>>> }
>> >> > >>>>>>> + if (QLIST_EMPTY(&dev->iommu_list) &&
>> >> > >>>>>>> + dev->vhost_ops->vhost_set_iotlb_callback) {
>> >> > >>>>>>> + dev->vhost_ops->vhost_set_iotlb_callback(dev, false);
>> >> > >>>>>>> + }
>> >> > >>>>>> So the current code assumes:
>> >> > >>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>> 1) IOMMU is enabled before vhost starts
>> >> > >>>>>> 2) IOMMU is disabled after vhost stops
>> >> > >>>>>>
>> >> > >>>>>> This patch seems to fix 2) but not 1). Do we need to deal with
>> >> > >>>>>> the
>> >> > >>>>>> IOMMU enabled after vhost starts?
>> >> > >>>>> sorry I initially misunderstood the above comment. Indeed in the
>> >reboot
>> >> > >>>>> case assumption 2) happens to be wrong. However what I currently
>do
>> >is:
>> >> > >>>>> stop listening to iotlb miss requests from the kernel because my
>> >> > >>>>> understanding is those requests are just spurious ones, generate
>> >> > >>>>> warnings and we do not care since we are rebooting the system.
>> >> > >>>>>
>> >> > >>>>> However I do not claim this could handle the case where the
>IOMMU
>> >MR
>> >> > >>>>> would be turned off and then turned on. I think in that case we
>should
>> >> > >>>>> also flush the kernel IOTLB and this is not taken care of in this
>> >> > >>>>> patch.
>> >> > >>>>> Is it a relevant use case?
>> >> > >>>> Not sure.
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>>> wrt removing assumption 1) and allow IOMMU enabled after vhost
>> >start. Is
>> >> > >>>>> that a valid use case as the virtio driver is using the dma api?
>> >> > >>>> It should not be but we can't assume the behaviour of the guest. It
>> >> > >>>> could be buggy or even malicious.
>> >> > >>> agreed
>> >> > >>>> Btw, we had the following codes while handling te:
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> /* Handle Translation Enable/Disable */
>> >> > >>>> static void vtd_handle_gcmd_te(IntelIOMMUState *s, bool en)
>> >> > >>>> {
>> >> > >>>> if (s->dmar_enabled == en) {
>> >> > >>>> return;
>> >> > >>>> }
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> trace_vtd_dmar_enable(en);
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> ...
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> vtd_reset_caches(s);
>> >> > >>>> vtd_address_space_refresh_all(s);
>> >> > >>>> }
>> >> > >>>>
>> >> > >>>> vtd_address_space_refresh_all() will basically disable the iommu
>> >> > >>>> memory region. It looks not sufficient to trigger the region_del
>> >> > >>>> callback, maybe we should delete the region or introduce listener
>> >> > >>>> callback?
>> >> > >>> This is exactly the code path which is entered in my use case.
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> vtd_address_space_refresh_all(s) induces the
>vhost_iommu_region_del.
>> >But
>> >> > >given the current implement of this latter the IOTLB callback is not
>> >> > >unset
>and
>> >the
>> >> > >kernel IOTLB is not refreshed. Also as I pointed out the hdev->mem-
>>regions
>> >are
>> >> > >not updated? shouldn't they. Can you explain what they correspond to?
>> >> > >> Adding Peter for more ideas.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> I think it's better to find a way to trigger the listener here,
>> >> > >> probably:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 1) add/delete the memory regions instead of enable/disable
>> >> > >sorry I don't understand what you mean. The vhost_iommu_region_del
>call
>> >> > >stack is provided below [1]. Write to the intel iommu GCMD TE bit
>> >> > >induces a call to vhost_iommu_region_del. This happens before the
>> >> > >vhost_dev_stop whose call stack is provided below [2] and originates
>> >> > >from a bus reset.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >We may have inflight IOTLB miss requests happening between both.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >If this happens, vhost_device_iotlb_miss() fails because the IOVA is
>> >> > >not
>> >> > >translated anymore by the IOMMU and the iotlb.translated_addr returned
>> >> > >by address_space_get_iotlb_entry() is not within the registered
>> >> > >vhost_memory_regions looked up in vhost_memory_region_lookup(),
>hence
>> >> > >the "Fail to lookup the translated address" message.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >It sounds wrong that vhost keeps on using IOVAs that are not translated
>> >> > >anymore. It looks we have a reset ordering issue and this patch is just
>> >> > >removing the sympton and not the cause.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >At the moment I don't really get what is initiating the intel iommu TE
>> >> > >bit write. This is a guest action but is it initiated from a misordered
>> >> > >qemu event?
>> >> >
>> >> > During reboot, native_machine_shutdown() calls
>> >x86_platform.iommu_shutdown()
>> >> > to disable iommu before reset. So Peter's patch will not address your
>> >> > issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Before iommu shutdown, device_shutdown() is called to shutdown all
>devices.
>> >> > Not clear why vhost is still active.
>> >>
>> >> It might be because neither virtio bus nor virtio-net provides a
>> >> shutdown method.
>>
>> Oh, I see.
>>
>> >>
>> >> There used to be requests to provide those to unbreak the kexec.
>> >
>> >More could be seen at https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-331
>> >
>> >This looks exactly the same issue.
>>
>> Have not access😊
>
>It should work now.
Yes, exactly same issue.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
