Hi, On 7/1/20 5:33 PM, Jacob Pan wrote: > For guest requested IOTLB invalidation, address and mask are provided as > part of the invalidation data. VT-d HW silently ignores any address bits > below the mask. SW shall also allow such case but give warning if > address does not align with the mask. This patch relax the fault > handling from error to warning and proceed with invalidation request > with the given mask. What I don't really get is the guest shouldn't do that. Don't we want to be more strict in that case and return an error?
Thanks Eric > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun....@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > index 6a0c62c7395c..2e1b53ade784 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c > @@ -5439,13 +5439,12 @@ intel_iommu_sva_invalidate(struct iommu_domain > *domain, struct device *dev, > > switch (BIT(cache_type)) { > case IOMMU_CACHE_INV_TYPE_IOTLB: > + /* HW will ignore LSB bits based on address mask */ > if (inv_info->granularity == IOMMU_INV_GRANU_ADDR && > size && > (inv_info->addr_info.addr & ((BIT(VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + > size)) - 1))) { > - pr_err_ratelimited("Address out of range, > 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > - inv_info->addr_info.addr, > size); > - ret = -ERANGE; > - goto out_unlock; > + pr_err_ratelimited("User address not aligned, > 0x%llx, size order %llu\n", > + inv_info->addr_info.addr, size); > } > > /* > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu