Thread (22 messages) 22 messages, 4 authors, 2026-01-15

Re: [PATCH rc v5 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add update_safe bits to fix STE update sequence

From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-12 15:53:40
Also in: linux-iommu, lkml

On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 08:36:46PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 09:20:06PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted
quoted
 drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h   |  2 ++
 .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c  | 18 ++++++++++---
 drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c   | 27 ++++++++++++++-----
 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Hmm. So this appears to ignore the safe bits entirely, whereas the
rationale for the change is that going from {MEV,EATS} disabled to
enabled is safe (which I agree with). 
The argument was it doesn't matter for either direction be it disabled
to enabled or vice versa, see my reply to Mustfa in the v4 posting:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251218180129.GA254720@nvidia.com/ (local)
It would be good to include some of that rationale in the comment and
commit message for patch 3, as at the moment it only talks about the
change in one direction.

I'm also still not convinced that this is generally safe, even if it
works within what Linux currently does. For example, if somebody tries
to disable S2S and enable ATS at the same time, couldn't you transiently
get an illegal STE?

Will
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help