The iommu_get_domain_for_dev() helper will be reworked to check a per-gdv
flag, so it will need to hold the group->mutex. This will give trouble to
existing attach_dev callback functions that call the helper for currently
attached old domains, since group->mutex is already held in an attach_dev
context.
To address this, step one is to pass in the attached "old" domain pointer
to the attach_dev op, similar to set_dev_pasid op.
However, the release_dev op is tricky in the iommu core, because it could
be invoked when the group isn't allocated, i.e. no way of guarateeing the
group->mutex being held. Thus, it would not be able to do any attachment
in the release_dev callback function, arm_smmu_release_device() here.
Add a release_domain, moving the attach from arm_smmu_release_device() to
the iommu_deinit_device() in the core, so that arm_smmu_release_device()
will not need to worry about the group->mutex.
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 5968043ac8023..1a21d1a2dd454 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -3291,6 +3291,31 @@ static struct iommu_domain arm_smmu_blocked_domain = {
.ops = &arm_smmu_blocked_ops,
};
+static int arm_smmu_attach_dev_release(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+ struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
+
+ WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount);
+
+ /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */
+ if (dev->iommu->require_direct)
+ arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, dev);
+ else
+ arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, dev);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = {
+ .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_release,
+};
+
+static struct iommu_domain arm_smmu_release_domain = {
+ .type = IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED,
+ .ops = &arm_smmu_release_ops,
+};
+
static struct iommu_domain *
arm_smmu_domain_alloc_paging_flags(struct device *dev, u32 flags,
const struct iommu_user_data *user_data)
@@ -3580,14 +3605,6 @@ static void arm_smmu_release_device(struct device *dev)
{
struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
- WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount);
-
- /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */
- if (dev->iommu->require_direct)
- arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, dev);
- else
- arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, dev);
-
arm_smmu_disable_pasid(master);
arm_smmu_remove_master(master);
if (arm_smmu_cdtab_allocated(&master->cd_table))
@@ -3678,6 +3695,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_def_domain_type(struct device *dev)
static const struct iommu_ops arm_smmu_ops = {
.identity_domain = &arm_smmu_identity_domain,
.blocked_domain = &arm_smmu_blocked_domain,
+ .release_domain = &arm_smmu_release_domain,
.capable = arm_smmu_capable,
.hw_info = arm_smmu_hw_info,
.domain_alloc_sva = arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc,
--
2.43.0
> From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:32 AM > > +static int arm_smmu_attach_dev_release(struct iommu_domain *domain, > + struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev); > + > + WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount); > + > + /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */ > + if (dev->iommu->require_direct) > + > arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, > dev); > + else > + > arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, > dev); it's a bit confusing that a BLOCKED domain type could turn to the identity mode, though this movement doesn't change the original behavior. > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { > + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_release, > +}; > + > +static struct iommu_domain arm_smmu_release_domain = { > + .type = IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED, > + .ops = &arm_smmu_release_ops, > +}; > +
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 09:33:06AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > > Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:32 AM > > > > +static int arm_smmu_attach_dev_release(struct iommu_domain *domain, > > + struct device *dev) > > +{ > > + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev); > > + > > + WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount); This doesn't look right anymore.. Now that iopf is managed automatically it technically doesn't go to zero until the attaches below: > > + > > + /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */ > > + if (dev->iommu->require_direct) > > + > > arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, > > dev); > > + else > > + > > arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, > > dev); And I'd argue the attaches internally should have the assertion. If no pasids and blocked/identity the iopf == 0. > it's a bit confusing that a BLOCKED domain type could turn to the > identity mode, though this movement doesn't change the original > behavior. That isn't what is happening here.. If dev->iommu->require_direct is set we prevent attaching BLOCKING domains entirely: if (dev->iommu->require_direct && (new_domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED || new_domain == group->blocking_domain)) { dev_warn(dev, "Firmware has requested this device have a 1:1 IOMMU mapping, rejecting configuring the device without a 1:1 mapping. Contact your platform vendor.\n"); return -EINVAL; } So in most sane cases the above will never convert BLOCKING to IDENTITY. What it is doing is preserving the RMRs... Also, I don't think this should be in the smmu driver, every driver should have this same logic, it is part of the definition of RMR Let's put it in the core code: if (!dev->iommu->attach_deferred && ops->release_domain) { struct iommu_domain *release_domain = ops->release_domain; /* * If the device requires direct mappings then it should not * be parked on a BLOCKED domain during release as that would * break the direct mappings. */ if (dev->iommu->require_direct && ops->identity_domain && release_domain == ops->blocked_domain) release_domain = ops->identity_domain; release_domain->ops->attach_dev(release_domain, dev); } Jason
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 09:35:15AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 09:33:06AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > > > Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:32 AM > > > > > > +static int arm_smmu_attach_dev_release(struct iommu_domain *domain, > > > + struct device *dev) > > > +{ > > > + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev); > > > + > > > + WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount); > > This doesn't look right anymore.. > > Now that iopf is managed automatically it technically doesn't go to > zero until the attaches below: I will leave this WARN_ON in the arm_smmu_release_device(), while having a release_domain to call arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(): ----------------------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c index 2a8b46b948f05..3b21790938d24 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c @@ -3291,6 +3291,16 @@ static struct iommu_domain arm_smmu_blocked_domain = { .ops = &arm_smmu_blocked_ops, }; +/* Same as arm_smmu_blocked_ops but less set_dev_pasid */ +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked, +}; + +static struct iommu_domain arm_smmu_release_domain = { + .type = IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED, + .ops = &arm_smmu_release_ops, +}; + static struct iommu_domain * arm_smmu_domain_alloc_paging_flags(struct device *dev, u32 flags, const struct iommu_user_data *user_data) @@ -3582,12 +3592,6 @@ static void arm_smmu_release_device(struct device *dev) WARN_ON(master->iopf_refcount); - /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */ - if (dev->iommu->require_direct) - arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, dev); - else - arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, dev); - arm_smmu_disable_pasid(master); arm_smmu_remove_master(master); if (arm_smmu_cdtab_allocated(&master->cd_table)) @@ -3678,6 +3682,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_def_domain_type(struct device *dev) static const struct iommu_ops arm_smmu_ops = { .identity_domain = &arm_smmu_identity_domain, .blocked_domain = &arm_smmu_blocked_domain, + .release_domain = &arm_smmu_release_domain, .capable = arm_smmu_capable, .hw_info = arm_smmu_hw_info, .domain_alloc_sva = arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc, ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > + > > > + /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */ > > > + if (dev->iommu->require_direct) > > > + > > > arm_smmu_attach_dev_identity(&arm_smmu_identity_domain, > > > dev); > > > + else > > > + > > > arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked(&arm_smmu_blocked_domain, > > > dev); > > And I'd argue the attaches internally should have the assertion. If no > pasids and blocked/identity the iopf == 0. Ack. I will try a separate SMMU patch from this series. > Also, I don't think this should be in the smmu driver, every driver > should have this same logic, it is part of the definition of RMR > Let's put it in the core code: Ack. Adding this patch prior to the SMMU release_domain: ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 22:26:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] iommu: Use identity_domain as release_domain for require_direct If dev->iommu->require_direct is set, the core prevent attaching a BLOCKED domains entirely in __iommu_device_set_domain(): if (dev->iommu->require_direct && (new_domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED || new_domain == group->blocking_domain)) { dev_warn(dev, "...."); return -EINVAL; } Thus, in most sane cases, the above will never convert BLOCKED to IDENTITY in order to preserve the RMRs (direct mappings). A similar situation would happen to the release_domain: while driver might have set it to a BLOCKED domain, replace it with an IDENTITY for RMRs. Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index 08ba7b929580f..438458b465cac 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -516,8 +516,20 @@ static void iommu_deinit_device(struct device *dev) * Regardless, if a delayed attach never occurred, then the release * should still avoid touching any hardware configuration either. */ - if (!dev->iommu->attach_deferred && ops->release_domain) - ops->release_domain->ops->attach_dev(ops->release_domain, dev); + if (!dev->iommu->attach_deferred && ops->release_domain) { + struct iommu_domain *release_domain = ops->release_domain; + + /* + * If the device requires direct mappings then it should not + * be parked on a BLOCKED domain during release as that would + * break the direct mappings. + */ + if (dev->iommu->require_direct && ops->identity_domain && + release_domain == ops->blocked_domain) + release_domain = ops->identity_domain; + + release_domain->ops->attach_dev(release_domain, dev); + } if (ops->release_device) ops->release_device(dev); -- 2.43.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Nicolin
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 03:47:49PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > +/* Same as arm_smmu_blocked_ops but less set_dev_pasid */ > +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { > + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked, > +}; don't worry about set_dev_pasid for the release domain, it is never called anyhow. The intention is to just use identity or blocked domains as is. Jason > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> > Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 22:26:45 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] iommu: Use identity_domain as release_domain for > require_direct > > If dev->iommu->require_direct is set, the core prevent attaching a BLOCKED > domains entirely in __iommu_device_set_domain(): > > if (dev->iommu->require_direct && > (new_domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED || > new_domain == group->blocking_domain)) { > dev_warn(dev, "...."); > return -EINVAL; > } > > Thus, in most sane cases, the above will never convert BLOCKED to IDENTITY > in order to preserve the RMRs (direct mappings). > > A similar situation would happen to the release_domain: while driver might > have set it to a BLOCKED domain, replace it with an IDENTITY for RMRs. How about [PATCH] iommu: Generic support for RMRs during device release Generally an IOMMU driver should leave the translation as BLOCKED until the translation entry is probed onto a struct device. When the struct device is removed the translation should be put back to BLOCKED. Drivers that are able to work like this can set their release_domain to their blocking domain and the core code handles this work. The exception is if the device has a IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT region. In this case the OS should continuously allow translation for the given range. The core code generally prevents using a BLOCKED domain with this device. Continue this logic for the device release and hoist some open coding from drivers. If the device has dev->iommu->require_direct and the driver is using a BLOCKED release_domain override this to IDENTITY to preserve the semantics. The only remaining required driver code for IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT should preset an IDENTITY translation during early IOMMU startup for those devices. Jason
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:22:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 03:47:49PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > +/* Same as arm_smmu_blocked_ops but less set_dev_pasid */ > > +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { > > + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked, > > +}; > > don't worry about set_dev_pasid for the release domain, it is never > called anyhow. > > The intention is to just use identity or blocked domains as is. Ah, I see AMD separate release_domain from blocked_domain.. OK. Will just set it to blocked_domain. And will update the commit message as well. Thanks Nicolin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:37:31AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:22:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 03:47:49PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > +/* Same as arm_smmu_blocked_ops but less set_dev_pasid */ > > > +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { > > > + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked, > > > +}; > > > > don't worry about set_dev_pasid for the release domain, it is never > > called anyhow. > > > > The intention is to just use identity or blocked domains as is. > > Ah, I see AMD separate release_domain from blocked_domain.. Send a patch for AMD since you found it? Jason
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:44:53PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:37:31AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 02:22:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 03:47:49PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > > +/* Same as arm_smmu_blocked_ops but less set_dev_pasid */ > > > > +static const struct iommu_domain_ops arm_smmu_release_ops = { > > > > + .attach_dev = arm_smmu_attach_dev_blocked, > > > > +}; > > > > > > don't worry about set_dev_pasid for the release domain, it is never > > > called anyhow. > > > > > > The intention is to just use identity or blocked domains as is. > > > > Ah, I see AMD separate release_domain from blocked_domain.. > > Send a patch for AMD since you found it? Yea, sure. Nicolin
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.