[RFC 0/4] Virtio uses DMA API for all devices

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:24:57AM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 01:36 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We just need to figure out how to deal with devices that deviate
> > from the default.  One things is that VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM really
> > should become VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA to cover the cases of non-iommu
> > dma tweaks (offsets, cache flushing), which seems well in spirit of
> > the original design. 
> 
> I don't completely agree:
> 
> 1 - VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM is a property of the "other side", ie qemu
> for example. It indicates that the peer bypasses the normal platform
> iommu. The platform code in the guest has no real way to know that this
> is the case, this is a specific "feature" of the qemu implementation.
> 
> 2 - VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA (or whatever you want to call it), is a
> property of the guest platform itself (not qemu), there's no way the
> "peer" can advertize it via the virtio negociated flags. At least for
> us. I don't know for sure whether that would be workable for the ARM
> case. In our case, qemu has no idea at VM creation time that the VM
> will turn itself into a secure VM and thus will require bounce
> buffering for IOs (including virtio).
> 
> So unless we have another hook for the arch code to set
> VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA on selected (or all) virtio devices from the
> guest itself, I don't see that as a way to deal with it.
> 
> >  The other issue is VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > which is very vaguely defined, and which needs a better definition.
> > And last but not least we'll need some text explaining the challenges
> > of hardware devices - I think VIRTIO_F_PLATFORM_DMA + VIRTIO_F_IO_BARRIER
> > is what would basically cover them, but a good description including
> > an explanation of why these matter.
> 
> Ben.
> 

So is it true that from qemu point of view there is nothing special
going on?  You pass in a PA, host writes there.


-- 
MST