Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for driver IOMMU fault handlers

[Robin Murphy]

On 2021-01-22 12:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:15:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > Call report_iommu_fault() to allow upper-level drivers to register their
> > own fault handlers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> >   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > index 0f28a8614da3..7fd18bbda8f5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> >   	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
> >   	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
> >   	int idx = smmu_domain->cfg.cbndx;
> > +	int ret;
> >   
> >   	fsr = arm_smmu_cb_read(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR);
> >   	if (!(fsr & ARM_SMMU_FSR_FAULT))
> > @@ -436,11 +437,20 @@ static irqreturn_t arm_smmu_context_fault(int irq, void *dev)
> >   	iova = arm_smmu_cb_readq(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FAR);
> >   	cbfrsynra = arm_smmu_gr1_read(smmu, ARM_SMMU_GR1_CBFRSYNRA(idx));
> >   
> > -	dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> > -	"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> > +	ret = report_iommu_fault(domain, dev, iova,
> > +		fsynr & ARM_SMMU_FSYNR0_WNR ? IOMMU_FAULT_WRITE : IOMMU_FAULT_READ);
> > +
> > +	if (ret == -ENOSYS)
> > +		dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> > +		"Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x%x, iova=0x%08lx, fsynr=0x%x, cbfrsynra=0x%x, cb=%d\n",
> >   			    fsr, iova, fsynr, cbfrsynra, idx);
> >   
> > -	arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the iommu fault returns an error (except -ENOSYS) then assume that
> > +	 * they will handle resuming on their own
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!ret || ret == -ENOSYS)
> > +		arm_smmu_cb_write(smmu, idx, ARM_SMMU_CB_FSR, fsr);
>
> Hmm, I don't grok this part. If the fault handler returned an error and
> we don't clear the FSR, won't we just re-take the irq immediately?

If we don't touch the FSR at all, yes. Even if we clear the fault 
indicator bits, the interrupt *might* remain asserted until a stalled 
transaction is actually resolved - that's that lovely IMP-DEF corner.

Robin.

> I think
> it would be better to do this unconditionally, and print the "Unhandled
> context fault" message for any non-zero value of ret.
>
> Will