On 10/6/26 00:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 02:43:08PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 02:09:39PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm) wrote:

quoted

This series propagates DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED through the dma-direct,
dma-pool, and swiotlb paths so that encrypted and decrypted DMA buffers
are handled consistently.

Today, the direct DMA path mostly relies on force_dma_unencrypted() for
shared/decrypted buffer handling. This series consolidates the
force_dma_unencrypted() checks in the top-level functions and ensures
that the remaining DMA interfaces use DMA attributes to make the correct
decisions.

Please check Sashiko's reports, it has some good points:

https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260604083959.1265923-1-aneesh.kumar@kernel.org

I think the main one is the swiotlb_tbl_map_single() changes which break
AMD SME host support. There cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT) is true
but force_dma_unencrypted() is false. Normally you'd not end up on this
path but you can have swiotlb=force.

IMHO that's an AMD issue, not with the design of this series..

The series is right, a device that is !force_dma_decrypted() must be
considerd to be a trusted device and we must never place any DMA
mappings for a trusted device into shared memory.

swiotlb=force forces swiotlb, not decryption.

quoted

That AMD has done somethine insane:

bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
{
	/*
	 * For SEV, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses.
	 */
	if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT))
		return true;

	/*
	 * For SME, all DMA must be to unencrypted addresses if the
	 * device does not support DMA to addresses that include the
	 * encryption mask.
	 */
	if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT)) {
		u64 dma_enc_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(__ffs64(sme_me_mask));
		u64 dma_dev_mask = min_not_zero(dev->coherent_dma_mask,
						dev->bus_dma_limit);

		if (dma_dev_mask <= dma_enc_mask)
			return true;
	}

So when I try "mem_encrypt=on iommu=pt swiotlb=force" with this patchset, it fails to boot. But it boots with a hack like this:

===

@@ -39,7 +41,7 @@ bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
                         return true;
         }
  
-       return false;
+       return swiotlb_force_bounce;
  }

===

Or we say "mem_encrypt=on iommu=pt swiotlb=force" combo is just weird and we won't be supporting which bit in this? Thanks,