Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Christian Borntraeger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix restricted DMA vs swiotlb_exit() | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 |
| |
Resending with the correct email of Heiko....
On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: >>> Hi again, folks, >>> >>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@kernel.org >>> >>> The only changes since v1 are: >>> >>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly >>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) >>> >>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes >>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. >>> >>> Cheers, >> >> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode >> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 >> >> to >> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc >> Author: Claire Chang <tientzu@chromium.org> >> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 >> >> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing >> >> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more >> things are broken. >> >> Any idea what else might be broken? > > I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since > that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is > initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. > > --------------------8<------------------------------------- > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb > > Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for > swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so > before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise > io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices > that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force > having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. > > Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new > requirement. > I would add: Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") as this patch breaks things and Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization")
to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things.
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
I can confirm that this fixes the problem. This also makes sense codewise.
Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Konrad, Heiko, Vasily, any preference which tree this goes? I think s390 would be easiest, but that requires that the patches in the swiotlb tree have fixed commit IDs.
> --- > arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > index 8ac710de1ab1..07bbee9b7320 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > @@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ static void pv_init(void) > return; > > /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > swiotlb_init(1); > swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > - swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > } > > void __init mem_init(void) >
| |