Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 2/2] vfio: fix partial DMA unmapping for VFIO type1

[Nithin Dabilpuram <nithind1988@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 04:10:31PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 15-Oct-20 12:57 PM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:31 PM Burakov, Anatoly
> > <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 15-Oct-20 7:09 AM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > > > > External Email
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > On 12-Oct-20 9:11 AM, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote:
> > > > > > Partial unmapping is not supported for VFIO IOMMU type1
> > > > > > by kernel. Though kernel gives return as zero, the unmapped size
> > > > > > returned will not be same as expected. So check for
> > > > > > returned unmap size and return error.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For case of DMA map/unmap triggered by heap allocations,
> > > > > > maintain granularity of memseg page size so that heap
> > > > > > expansion and contraction does not have this issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is quite unfortunate, because there was a different bug that had to do
> > > > > with kernel having a very limited number of mappings available [1], as a
> > > > > result of which the page concatenation code was added.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It should therefore be documented that the dma_entry_limit parameter should
> > > > > be adjusted should the user run out of the DMA entries.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_lkml_155414977872.12780.13728555131525362206.stgit-40gimli.home_T_&d=DwICaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=FZ_tPCbgFOh18zwRPO9H0yDx8VW38vuapifdDfc8SFQ&m=3GMg-634_cdUCY4WpQPwjzZ_S4ckuMHOnt2FxyyjXMk&s=TJLzppkaDS95VGyRHX2hzflQfb9XLK0OiOszSXoeXKk&e=
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > > > >                      RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "  cannot clear DMA remapping, error %i (%s)\n",
> > > > > >                                      errno, strerror(errno));
> > > > > >                      return -1;
> > > > > > +           } else if (dma_unmap.size != len) {
> > > > > > +                   RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "  unexpected size %"PRIu64" of DMA "
> > > > > > +                           "remapping cleared instead of %"PRIu64"\n",
> > > > > > +                           (uint64_t)dma_unmap.size, len);
> > > > > > +                   rte_errno = EIO;
> > > > > > +                   return -1;
> > > > > >              }
> > > > > >      }
> > > > > > @@ -1853,6 +1869,12 @@ container_dma_unmap(struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
> > > > > >              /* we're partially unmapping a previously mapped region, so we
> > > > > >               * need to split entry into two.
> > > > > >               */
> > > > > > +           if (!vfio_cfg->vfio_iommu_type->partial_unmap) {
> > > > > > +                   RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "DMA partial unmap unsupported\n");
> > > > > > +                   rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
> > > > > > +                   ret = -1;
> > > > > > +                   goto out;
> > > > > > +           }
> > > > > 
> > > > > How would we ever arrive here if we never do more than 1 page worth of
> > > > > memory anyway? I don't think this is needed.
> > > > 
> > > > container_dma_unmap() is called by user via rte_vfio_container_dma_unmap()
> > > > and when he maps we don't split it as we don't about his memory.
> > > > So if he maps multiple pages and tries to unmap partially, then we should fail.
> > > 
> > > Should we map it in page granularity then, instead of adding this
> > > discrepancy between EAL and user mapping? I.e. instead of adding a
> > > workaround, how about we just do the same thing for user mem mappings?
> > > 
> > In heap mapping's we map and unmap it at huge page granularity as we will always
> > maintain that.
> > 
> > But here I think we don't know if user's allocation is huge page or
> > collection of system
> > pages. Only thing we can do here is map it at system page granularity which
> > could waste entries if he say really is working with hugepages. Isn't ?
> > 
> 
> Yeah we do. The API mandates the pages granularity, and it will check
> against page size and number of IOVA entries, so yes, we do enforce the fact
> that the IOVA addresses supplied by the user have to be page addresses.

If I see rte_vfio_container_dma_map(), there is no mention of Huge page size
user is providing or we computing. He can call rte_vfio_container_dma_map()
with 1GB huge page or 4K system page.

Am I missing something ?
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Anatoly