On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 24.02.20 18:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 02:07:58PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > > AFAIU you have a positive attitude towards
On 24.02.20 18:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 02:07:58PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
AFAIU you have a positive attitude towards the idea, that
!F_VIRTIO_PLATFORM implies 'no DMA API is used by virtio'
should
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:36:45 +0100
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > By "legacy devices" I assume you mean pre-virtio-1.0 devices, that
> > lack the F_VERSION_1 feature flag. Is that right? Because I don't
> > see how being a legacy device or not relates to use of the DMA API.
>
> No. "legacy"
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 02:07:58PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > AFAIU you have a positive attitude towards the idea, that
> > !F_VIRTIO_PLATFORM implies 'no DMA API is used by virtio'
> > should be scrapped.
> >
> > I would
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:36:45PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:59:15PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > Hell no. This is a detail of the platform DMA direct implementation.
> > > Drivers have no business looking at this flag, and virtio finally needs
> > > to be fi
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:39:38AM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 2/21/20 7:12 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >>> Currently the advanced guest memory protection
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> AFAIU you have a positive attitude towards the idea, that
> !F_VIRTIO_PLATFORM implies 'no DMA API is used by virtio'
> should be scrapped.
>
> I would like to accomplish that without adverse effects to virtio-ccw
> (because caring
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:39:38 +0100
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > Hell no. This is a detail of the platform DMA direct implementation.
> >
> > I beg to differ. If it was a detail of the DMA direct implementation, it
> > should have/
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:56:45 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
[..]
> > > To summarize, the necessary conditions for a hack along these lines
> > > (using DMA API
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:33:40PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Hell no. This is a detail of the platform DMA direct implementation.
>
> I beg to differ. If it was a detail of the DMA direct implementation, it
> should have/would have been private to kernel/dma/direct.c.
It can't given that pl
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:59:15PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > Hell no. This is a detail of the platform DMA direct implementation.
> > Drivers have no business looking at this flag, and virtio finally needs
> > to be fixed to use the DMA API properly for everything but legacy devices.
>
> So,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:56:45AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > - DMA API is giving us addresses that are actually also physical
> > > addresses
> >
> > In case of s390 this is given.
> > I talked with the power people before
> > posting this, and they ensured me they can are willi
On 2/21/20 7:12 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
>>> powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protec
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > > powerpc secure guest
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:13:09 +0100
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > +++ b/driv
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:41:57 +0800
Jason Wang wrote:
> > I *think* what you are suggesting here is that virtio devices that
> > have !F_IOMMU_PLATFORM should have their dma_ops set up so that the
> > DMA API treats IOVA==PA, which will satisfy what the device expects.
>
>
> Can this work for
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:59:15 +1100
David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > index 867c7ebd3f10..faf
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:55:14 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM
On 2020/2/21 上午10:59, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
--- a/drive
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:17:48PM -0800, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > > powerpc secure guest tech
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:13:09PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > +++ b
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:55:14PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> > powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> > VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATF
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
> powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
> VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to make virtio core use the DMA API, which
> is in turn necessary,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 867c7ebd3f10..fafc8f924955 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -243,6 +243,9 @@ static bool vring_use_dma
Currently the advanced guest memory protection technologies (AMD SEV,
powerpc secure guest technology and s390 Protected VMs) abuse the
VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM flag to make virtio core use the DMA API, which
is in turn necessary, to make IO work with guest memory protection.
But VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLA
25 matches
Mail list logo
