1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH rc v4 0/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Fix hitless STE update in nesting cases
  4. View patch

[PATCH rc v4 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-test: Add nested s1bypass/s1dssbypass coverage

Nicolin Chen posted 4 patches 1 month, 3 weeks ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH rc v4 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-test: Add nested s1bypass/s1dssbypass coverage
Posted by Nicolin Chen 1 month, 3 weeks ago 
STE in a nested case requires both S1 and S2 fields. And this makes the use
case different from the existing one.

Add coverage for previously failed cases shifting between S2-only and S1+S2
STEs.

Reviewed-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
---
 .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c  | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
index 5db14718fdd6..8255a02f4efa 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
@@ -33,8 +33,12 @@ static struct mm_struct sva_mm = {
 enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat {
 	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS = BIT(0),
 	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_STALL = BIT(1),
+	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED = BIT(2),
 };
 
+static void arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
+				      enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat feat);
+
 static bool arm_smmu_entry_differs_in_used_bits(const __le64 *entry,
 						const __le64 *used_bits,
 						const __le64 *target,
@@ -197,6 +201,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
 	};
 
 	arm_smmu_make_cdtable_ste(ste, &master, ats_enabled, s1dss);
+	if (feat & ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED) {
+		struct arm_smmu_ste s2ste;
+		int i;
+
+		arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2ste, ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS);
+		ste->data[0] |= cpu_to_le64(
+			FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_0_CFG, STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_NESTED));
+		ste->data[1] |= cpu_to_le64(STRTAB_STE_1_MEV);
+		for (i = 2; i < NUM_ENTRY_QWORDS; i++)
+			ste->data[i] = s2ste.data[i];
+	}
 }
 
 static void arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_bypass_to_abort(struct kunit *test)
@@ -554,6 +569,35 @@ static void arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s2_to_s1_stall(struct kunit *test)
 						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(3));
 }
 
+static void
+arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1dssbypass_to_s1bypass(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct arm_smmu_ste s1_ste;
+	struct arm_smmu_ste s2_ste;
+
+	arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(
+		&s1_ste, STRTAB_STE_1_S1DSS_BYPASS, fake_cdtab_dma_addr,
+		ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS | ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED);
+	arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2_ste, 0);
+	/* Expect an additional sync to unset ignored bits: EATS and MEV */
+	arm_smmu_v3_test_ste_expect_hitless_transition(test, &s1_ste, &s2_ste,
+						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(3));
+}
+
+static void
+arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1bypass_to_s1dssbypass(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct arm_smmu_ste s1_ste;
+	struct arm_smmu_ste s2_ste;
+
+	arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(
+		&s1_ste, STRTAB_STE_1_S1DSS_BYPASS, fake_cdtab_dma_addr,
+		ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS | ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED);
+	arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2_ste, 0);
+	arm_smmu_v3_test_ste_expect_hitless_transition(test, &s2_ste, &s1_ste,
+						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(2));
+}
+
 static void arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_clear(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	struct arm_smmu_cd cd = {};
@@ -600,6 +644,8 @@ static struct kunit_case arm_smmu_v3_test_cases[] = {
 	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_s1_change_asid),
 	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s1_to_s2_stall),
 	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s2_to_s1_stall),
+	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1dssbypass_to_s1bypass),
+	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1bypass_to_s1dssbypass),
 	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_clear),
 	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_release),
 	{},
-- 
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH rc v4 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-test: Add nested s1bypass/s1dssbypass coverage
Posted by Mostafa Saleh 1 month, 2 weeks ago 
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 08:26:02PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> STE in a nested case requires both S1 and S2 fields. And this makes the use
> case different from the existing one.
> 
> Add coverage for previously failed cases shifting between S2-only and S1+S2
> STEs.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c  | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> index 5db14718fdd6..8255a02f4efa 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> @@ -33,8 +33,12 @@ static struct mm_struct sva_mm = {
>  enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat {
>  	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS = BIT(0),
>  	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_STALL = BIT(1),
> +	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED = BIT(2),
>  };
>  
> +static void arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
> +				      enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat feat);
> +
>  static bool arm_smmu_entry_differs_in_used_bits(const __le64 *entry,
>  						const __le64 *used_bits,
>  						const __le64 *target,
> @@ -197,6 +201,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
>  	};
>  
>  	arm_smmu_make_cdtable_ste(ste, &master, ats_enabled, s1dss);
> +	if (feat & ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED) {
> +		struct arm_smmu_ste s2ste;
> +		int i;
> +
> +		arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2ste, ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS);

Shouldn't that be conditional on "ats_enabled", I see the callers of the
new tests already set ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS.

Thanks,
Mostafa

> +		ste->data[0] |= cpu_to_le64(
> +			FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_0_CFG, STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_NESTED));
> +		ste->data[1] |= cpu_to_le64(STRTAB_STE_1_MEV);
> +		for (i = 2; i < NUM_ENTRY_QWORDS; i++)
> +			ste->data[i] = s2ste.data[i];
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static void arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_bypass_to_abort(struct kunit *test)
> @@ -554,6 +569,35 @@ static void arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s2_to_s1_stall(struct kunit *test)
>  						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(3));
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1dssbypass_to_s1bypass(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smmu_ste s1_ste;
> +	struct arm_smmu_ste s2_ste;
> +
> +	arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(
> +		&s1_ste, STRTAB_STE_1_S1DSS_BYPASS, fake_cdtab_dma_addr,
> +		ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS | ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED);
> +	arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2_ste, 0);
> +	/* Expect an additional sync to unset ignored bits: EATS and MEV */
> +	arm_smmu_v3_test_ste_expect_hitless_transition(test, &s1_ste, &s2_ste,
> +						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(3));
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1bypass_to_s1dssbypass(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smmu_ste s1_ste;
> +	struct arm_smmu_ste s2_ste;
> +
> +	arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(
> +		&s1_ste, STRTAB_STE_1_S1DSS_BYPASS, fake_cdtab_dma_addr,
> +		ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS | ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED);
> +	arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2_ste, 0);
> +	arm_smmu_v3_test_ste_expect_hitless_transition(test, &s2_ste, &s1_ste,
> +						       NUM_EXPECTED_SYNCS(2));
> +}
> +
>  static void arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_clear(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>  	struct arm_smmu_cd cd = {};
> @@ -600,6 +644,8 @@ static struct kunit_case arm_smmu_v3_test_cases[] = {
>  	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_s1_change_asid),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s1_to_s2_stall),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s2_to_s1_stall),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1dssbypass_to_s1bypass),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_nested_s1bypass_to_s1dssbypass),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_clear),
>  	KUNIT_CASE(arm_smmu_v3_write_cd_test_sva_release),
>  	{},
> -- 
> 2.43.0
>
Re: [PATCH rc v4 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-test: Add nested s1bypass/s1dssbypass coverage
Posted by Nicolin Chen 1 month, 2 weeks ago 
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 04:47:38PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 08:26:02PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > STE in a nested case requires both S1 and S2 fields. And this makes the use
> > case different from the existing one.
> > 
> > Add coverage for previously failed cases shifting between S2-only and S1+S2
> > STEs.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c  | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> > index 5db14718fdd6..8255a02f4efa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c
> > @@ -33,8 +33,12 @@ static struct mm_struct sva_mm = {
> >  enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat {
> >  	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS = BIT(0),
> >  	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_STALL = BIT(1),
> > +	ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED = BIT(2),
> >  };
> >  
> > +static void arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
> > +				      enum arm_smmu_test_master_feat feat);
> > +
> >  static bool arm_smmu_entry_differs_in_used_bits(const __le64 *entry,
> >  						const __le64 *used_bits,
> >  						const __le64 *target,
> > @@ -197,6 +201,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_test_make_cdtable_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste,
> >  	};
> >  
> >  	arm_smmu_make_cdtable_ste(ste, &master, ats_enabled, s1dss);
> > +	if (feat & ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_NESTED) {
> > +		struct arm_smmu_ste s2ste;
> > +		int i;
> > +
> > +		arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(&s2ste, ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS);
> 
> Shouldn't that be conditional on "ats_enabled", I see the callers of the
> new tests already set ARM_SMMU_MASTER_TEST_ATS.

I will fix that.

Thanks
Nicolin

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.