On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 05:36:23PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote: > But it's not about drivers in that case, it's about many places > (SWIOTLB and DMA-direct) calling set_memory_decrypted() without clear > ownership so in some cases they step on each other's toes, and I don't > think that will get simpler with yet another caller in this series
I don't understand how this can be, ownership is clear. SWIOTLB owns the buffer, dma alloc coherent owns the buffer, user owns the buffer. There should be no other cases, and they don't step on each other unless the APIs are being used wrong. > I am fine with the API design you mentioned, but I believe that it > needs clear documentation specifying who is responsible for > decryption. The code should provide wrappers checking for these cases > instead of having is_swiotlb_for_alloc() and force_dma_unencrypted() > everywhere in DMA-direct. Redoingt how dma-api works internally is some other project... It would be nice if swiotlb would sort of recursively DMA map using the new flag instead of open coding it but that is pretty minor. Jason
