Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu/vt-d: Fix unaligned addresses for intel_flush_svm_range_dev()

[Lu Baolu]

Hi Will,

Happy New Year!

On 2021/1/6 3:03, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 08:53:20AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > The VT-d hardware will ignore those Addr bits which have been masked by
> > the AM field in the PASID-based-IOTLB invalidation descriptor. As the
> > result, if the starting address in the descriptor is not aligned with
> > the address mask, some IOTLB caches might not invalidate. Hence people
> > will see below errors.
> >
> > [ 1093.704661] dmar_fault: 29 callbacks suppressed
> > [ 1093.704664] DMAR: DRHD: handling fault status reg 3
> > [ 1093.712738] DMAR: [DMA Read] Request device [7a:02.0] PASID 2
> >                 fault addr 7f81c968d000 [fault reason 113]
> >                 SM: Present bit in first-level paging entry is clear
> >
> > Fix this by using aligned address for PASID-based-IOTLB invalidation.
> >
> > Fixes: 1c4f88b7f1f92 ("iommu/vt-d: Shared virtual address in scalable mode")
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Guo Kaijie <Kaijie.Guo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> > index 69566695d032..b16a4791acfb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> > @@ -118,8 +118,10 @@ void intel_svm_check(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
> >   	iommu->flags |= VTD_FLAG_SVM_CAPABLE;
> >   }
> >   
> > -static void intel_flush_svm_range_dev (struct intel_svm *svm, struct intel_svm_dev *sdev,
> > -				unsigned long address, unsigned long pages, int ih)
> > +static void __flush_svm_range_dev(struct intel_svm *svm,
> > +				  struct intel_svm_dev *sdev,
> > +				  unsigned long address,
> > +				  unsigned long pages, int ih)
> >   {
> >   	struct qi_desc desc;
> >   
> > @@ -170,6 +172,22 @@ static void intel_flush_svm_range_dev (struct intel_svm *svm, struct intel_svm_d
> >   	}
> >   }
> >   
> > +static void intel_flush_svm_range_dev(struct intel_svm *svm,
> > +				      struct intel_svm_dev *sdev,
> > +				      unsigned long address,
> > +				      unsigned long pages, int ih)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long shift = ilog2(__roundup_pow_of_two(pages));
> > +	unsigned long align = (1ULL << (VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + shift));
> > +	unsigned long start = ALIGN_DOWN(address, align);
> > +	unsigned long end = ALIGN(address + (pages << VTD_PAGE_SHIFT), align);
> > +
> > +	while (start < end) {
> > +		__flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, start, align >> VTD_PAGE_SHIFT, ih);
> > +		start += align;
> > +	}
> > +}
>
> Given that this only seems to be called from intel_invalidate_range(), which
> has to compute 'pages' only to have it pulled apart again here, perhaps it
> would be cleaner for intel_flush_svm_range() to take something like an
> 'order' argument instead?
>
> What do you think?

We need to clean up here. It's duplicate with the qi_flush_piotlb()
helper. I have a patch under testing for this. I will post it for review
later.

> Will

Best regards,
baolu