Hi,
On 06/02/2021 11:09, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 06/02/2021 00:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Commit 91d4eca7add broke gnttab_need_iommu_mapping on ARM.
Doh :/.
The offending chunk is: >
#define gnttab_need_iommu_mapping(d) \
- (is_domain_direct_mapped(d) && need_iommu(d))
+ (is_domain_direct_mapped(d) && need_iommu_pt_sync(d))
On ARM we need gnttab_need_iommu_mapping to be true for dom0 when it is
directly mapped, like the old check did,
This is not entirely correct, we only need gnttab_need_iommu_mapping()
to return true when the domain is direct mapped **and** the IOMMU is
enabled for the domain.
but the new check is always
false. >
In fact, need_iommu_pt_sync is defined as dom_iommu(d)->need_sync and
need_sync is set as:
if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) || iommu_hwdom_strict )
hd->need_sync = !iommu_use_hap_pt(d); >
iommu_hwdom_strict is actually supposed to be ignored on ARM, see the
definition in docs/misc/xen-command-line.pandoc:
This option is hardwired to true for x86 PVH dom0's (as RAM
belonging to
other domains in the system don't live in a compatible address
space), and
is ignored for ARM.
But aside from that, the issue is that iommu_use_hap_pt(d) is true,
hence, hd->need_sync is false, and gnttab_need_iommu_mapping(d) is false
too.
need_sync means that you have a separate IOMMU page-table and they need
to be updated for every change.
hap_pt means the page-table used by the IOMMU is the P2M.
For Arm, we always shared the P2M with the IOMMU.
As a consequence, when using PV network from a domU on a system where
IOMMU is on from Dom0, I get:
(XEN) smmu: /smmu@fd800000: Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x402,
iova=0x8424cb148, fsynr=0xb0001, cb=0
[ 68.290307] macb ff0e0000.ethernet eth0: DMA bus error: HRESP not OK
The fix is to go back to the old implementation of
gnttab_need_iommu_mapping. However, we don't even need to specify &&
need_iommu(d) since we don't actually need to check for the IOMMU to be
enabled (iommu_map does it for us at the beginning of the function.)
gnttab_need_iommu_mapping() doesn't only gate the
iommu_legacy_{,un}map() call but also decides whether we need to held
both the local and remote grant-table write lock for the duration of the
operation (see double_gt_lock()).
I'd like to avoid the requirement to held the double_gt_lock() if there > is
the domain is going to use the IOMMU.
It looks like I didn't convey the right message here. What I meant is we
should avoid to held both grant-table locks if dom0 is not going to be
use the IOMMU.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
