[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] dt-bindings: of: Add restricted DMA pool
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:30 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-01-20 16:53, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:41:23AM +0800, Claire Chang wrote: > >> Introduce the new compatible string, restricted-dma-pool, for restricted > >> DMA. One can specify the address and length of the restricted DMA memory > >> region by restricted-dma-pool in the device tree. > > > > If this goes into DT, I think we should be able to use dma-ranges for > > this purpose instead. Normally, 'dma-ranges' is for physical bus > > restrictions, but there's no reason it can't be used for policy or to > > express restrictions the firmware has enabled. > > There would still need to be some way to tell SWIOTLB to pick up the > corresponding chunk of memory and to prevent the kernel from using it > for anything else, though. Don't we already have that problem if dma-ranges had a very small range? We just get lucky because the restriction is generally much more RAM than needed. In any case, wouldn't finding all the dma-ranges do this? We're already walking the tree to find the max DMA address now. > >> Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> .../reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git > >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt > >> index e8d3096d922c..44975e2a1fd2 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt > >> @@ -51,6 +51,20 @@ compatible (optional) - standard definition > >> used as a shared pool of DMA buffers for a set of devices. It > >> can > >> be used by an operating system to instantiate the necessary > >> pool > >> management subsystem if necessary. > >> + - restricted-dma-pool: This indicates a region of memory meant to > >> be > >> + used as a pool of restricted DMA buffers for a set of devices. > >> The > >> + memory region would be the only region accessible to those > >> devices. > >> + When using this, the no-map and reusable properties must not be > >> set, > >> + so the operating system can create a virtual mapping that will > >> be used > >> + for synchronization. The main purpose for restricted DMA is to > >> + mitigate the lack of DMA access control on systems without an > >> IOMMU, > >> + which could result in the DMA accessing the system memory at > >> + unexpected times and/or unexpected addresses, possibly leading > >> to data > >> + leakage or corruption. The feature on its own provides a basic > >> level > >> + of protection against the DMA overwriting buffer contents at > >> + unexpected times. However, to protect against general data > >> leakage and > >> + system memory corruption, the system needs to provide way to > >> restrict > >> + the DMA to a predefined memory region. > >> - vendor specific string in the form <vendor>,[<device>-]<usage> > >> no-map (optional) - empty property > >> - Indicates the operating system must not create a virtual mapping > >> @@ -120,6 +134,11 @@ one for multimedia processing (named > >> multimedia-memory@77000000, 64MiB). > >> compatible = "acme,multimedia-memory"; > >> reg = <0x77000000 0x4000000>; > >> }; > >> + > >> + restricted_dma_mem_reserved: restricted_dma_mem_reserved { > >> + compatible = "restricted-dma-pool"; > >> + reg = <0x50000000 0x400000>; > >> + }; > >> }; > >> > >> /* ... */ > >> @@ -138,4 +157,9 @@ one for multimedia processing (named > >> multimedia-memory@77000000, 64MiB). > >> memory-region = <&multimedia_reserved>; > >> /* ... */ > >> }; > >> + > >> + pcie_device: pcie_device@0,0 { > >> + memory-region = <&restricted_dma_mem_reserved>; > > > > PCI hosts often have inbound window configurations that limit the > > address range and translate PCI to bus addresses. Those windows happen > > to be configured by dma-ranges. In any case, wouldn't you want to put > > the configuration in the PCI host node? Is there a usecase of > > restricting one PCIe device and not another? > > The general design seems to accommodate devices having their own pools > such that they can't even snoop on each others' transient DMA data. If > the interconnect had a way of wiring up, say, PCI RIDs to AMBA NSAIDs, > then in principle you could certainly apply that to PCI endpoints too > (presumably you'd also disallow them from peer-to-peer transactions at > the PCI level too). At least for PCI, I think we can handle this. We have the BDF in the 3rd address cell in dma-ranges. The Openfirmware spec says those are 0 in the case of ranges. It doesn't talk about dma-ranges though. But I think we could extend it to allow for BDF. Though typically with PCIe every device is behind its own bridge and each bridge node can have a dma-ranges. Rob
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |