Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: realm: Use aliased addresses for device DMA to shared buffers
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Date: 2025-02-25 13:04:39
Also in:
lkml
On 2025-02-19 10:07 pm, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
When a device performs DMA to a shared buffer using physical addresses, (without Stage1 translation), the device must use the "{I}PA address" with the top bit set in Realm. This is to make sure that a trusted device will be able to write to shared buffers as well as the protected buffers. Thus, a Realm must always program the full address including the "protection" bit, like AMD SME encryption bits. Enable this by providing arm64 specific dma_{encrypted,decrypted,clear_encryption} helpers for Realms. Please note that the VMM needs to similarly make sure that the SMMU Stage2 in the Non-secure world is setup accordingly to map IPA at the unprotected alias. Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <redacted> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h index f8f78f622dd2..aeda3bba255e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h@@ -21,4 +21,26 @@ static inline bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev) return is_realm_world(); } +static inline dma_addr_t dma_decrypted(dma_addr_t daddr) +{ + if (is_realm_world()) + daddr |= prot_ns_shared; + return daddr; +} +#define dma_decrypted dma_decrypted + +static inline dma_addr_t dma_encrypted(dma_addr_t daddr) +{ + if (is_realm_world()) + daddr &= prot_ns_shared - 1;
Nit: is there a reason this isn't the direct inverse of the other operation, i.e. "daddr &= ~prot_ns_shared"? If so, it might be worth dropping a comment why we're doing slightly unintuitive arithmetic on a pagetable attribute (and if not then maybe just do the more obvious thing). I doubt anyone's in a rush to support TBI for DMA, and this would be far from the only potential hiccup for that, but still... :) Thanks, Robin.
+ return daddr;
+}
+#define dma_encrypted dma_encrypted
+
+static inline dma_addr_t dma_clear_encryption(dma_addr_t daddr)
+{
+ return dma_encrypted(daddr);
+}
+#define dma_clear_encryption dma_clear_encryption
+
#endif /* __ASM_MEM_ENCRYPT_H */