generic DMA bypass flag

[Robin Murphy]

On 16/11/2019 6:22 am, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:12:48PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> And is that any different from where you would choose to "just" set a
>> generic bypass flag?
> 
> Same spots, as intel-iommu moves from the identify to a dma domain when
> setting a 32-bit mask.  But that means once a 32-bit mask is set we can't
> ever go back to the 64-bit one.

Is that a problem though? It's not safe in general to rewrite the 
default domain willy-nilly, so if it's a concern that drivers get stuck 
having to use a translation domain if they do something dumb like:

	if (!dma_set_mask(DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
		dma_set_mask(DMA_BIT_MASK(64));

then the simple solution is "don't do that" - note that this doesn't 
affect overriding of the default 32-bit mask, because we don't use the 
driver API to initialise those.

>  And we had a couple drivers playing
> interesting games there.

If the games you're worried about are stuff like:

	dma_set_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
	high_buf = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, ...);
	dma_set_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
	low_buf = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, ...);

then iommu_need_mapping() already ensures that will end spectacularly 
badly. Unless we can somehow log when a mask has been "committed" by a 
mapping operation, I don't think any kind of opportunistic bypass 
mechanism is ever not going to blow up that case.

>  FYI, this is the current intel-iommu
> WIP conversion to the dma bypass flag:
> 
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/dma-bypass

Having thought a bit more, I guess my idea does end up with one slightly 
ugly corner wherein dma_direct_supported() has to learn to look for an 
IOMMU default domain and try iommu_dma_supported() before saying no, 
even if it's clean everywhere else. The bypass flag is more 'balanced' 
in terms of being equally invasive everywhere and preserving abstraction 
a bit better. Plus I think it might let us bring back the default 
assignment of dma_dummy_ops, which I do like the thought of :D

Either way, making sure that the fundamental bypass decision is correct 
and robust is still far more important than the implementation details.

Robin.