Re: [RFC PATCH v1 04/38] tsm: Support DMA Allocation from private memory

[Mostafa Saleh]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 09:45:18AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Hi Aneesh,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 07:21:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:
> >> Currently, we enforce the use of bounce buffers to ensure that memory
> >> accessed by non-secure devices is explicitly shared with the host [1].
> >> However, for secure devices, this approach must be avoided.
> >
> >
> > Sorry this might be a basic question, I just started looking into this.
> > I see that “force_dma_unencrypted” and “is_swiotlb_force_bounce” are only
> > used from DMA-direct, but it seems in your case it involves an IOMMU.
> > How does it influence bouncing in that case?
> >
> 
> With the current patchset, the guest does not have an assigned IOMMU (no
> Stage1 SMMU), so guest DMA operations use DMA-direct.
> 
> For non-secure devices:
>  - Streaming DMA uses swiotlb, which is a shared pool with the hypervisor.
>  - Non-streaming DMA uses DMA-direct, and the attributes of the allocated
>    memory are updated with dma_set_decrypted().
> 
> For secure devices, neither of these mechanisms is needed.

I see, thanks for the explanation!

Thanks,
Mostafa

> 
> -aneesh