[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] VT-d: Tylersburg errata apply to further steppings
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 03.08.2021 15:30, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:16:14PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 03.08.2021 15:12, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:06:50PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 03.08.2021 15:01, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > >>>>> Ok, then, just setting iommu_intremap=false should do the right thing, > >>>> > >>>> ... if "iommu=force" is in use (but not otherwise), ... > >>> > >>> But that's the purpose of iommu=force, no? > >>> With "iommu=force": strictly require IOMMU > >>> Without "iommu=force": use IOMMU on best-effort basis > >>> > >>> It makes sense to refuse the boot if intremap is broken in the first > >>> case. But also, it makes sense to allow using IOMMU without intremp in > >>> the second case. > >> > >> I agree with both statements. What I disagree with is that the latter > >> happens by default (instead of only upon admin override), including > >> the case of intremap being unavailable in the first place. > > > > "upon admin override" - do I read the code right, that iommu=no-intremap > > will actually achieve this effect? > > In the case of this quirk - yes, as the call to the checking function is > gated by a check of iommu_intremap. But by "admin override" I meant a > per-guest attribute, not a host-wide one that isn't explicitly meant to > cover all guests. > > > Will that allow to use IOMMU without > > interrupt remapping on a hardware where it's broken? In that case, maybe > > at least add this info to the log message? > > You mean to suggest the use of this option? I'd rather not, to be honest. > I don't think options like this should be suggested to be used. I'd > prefer if we had less of such options, i.e. if they went away after some > initial integration phase. Indeed, in fact I agree, this should be per-guest configurable option (and in some cases, it kind of is - toolstack will refuse to boot a domain with PCI devices if IOMMU is missing). But, as you noted earlier, there is no way to require intremap, on per-domain basis (regardless of what the default behavior would be). As for optionally requiring IOMMU host-wide, this still makes sense, as IOMMU could be used not only for PCI passthrough, but also to protect dom0 from some (possibly hot-plugged) devices - using quarantine feature. There may be also some desired interactions with Intel TXT (which AFAIR itself requires working VT-d). -- Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki Invisible Things Lab Attachment:
signature.asc
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |