[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210304170731.72039a23@omen.home.shazbot.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:07:31 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: <cohuck@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <peterx@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/10] vfio: Create a vfio_device from vma lookup
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:16:33 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 02:37:57PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > Therefore unless a bus driver opts-out by replacing vm_private_data, we
> > can identify participating vmas by the vm_ops and have flags indicating
> > if the vma maps device memory such that vfio_get_device_from_vma()
> > should produce a device reference. The vfio IOMMU backends would also
> > consume this, ie. if they get a valid vfio_device from the vma, use the
> > pfn_base field directly. vfio_vm_ops would wrap the bus driver
> > callbacks and provide reference counting on open/close to release this
> > object.
>
> > I'm not thrilled with a vfio_device_ops callback plumbed through
> > vfio-core to do vma-to-pfn translation, so I thought this might be a
> > better alternative. Thanks,
>
> Maybe you could explain why, because I'm looking at this idea and
> thinking it looks very complicated compared to a simple driver op
> callback?
vfio-core needs to export a vfio_vma_to_pfn() which I think assumes the
caller has already used vfio_device_get_from_vma(), but should still
validate the vma is one from a vfio device before calling this new
vfio_device_ops callback. vfio-pci needs to validate the vm_pgoff
value falls within a BAR region, mask off the index and get the
pci_resource_start() for the BAR index.
Then we need a solution for how vfio_device_get_from_vma() determines
whether to grant a device reference for a given vma, where that vma may
map something other than device memory. Are you imagining that we hand
out device references independently and vfio_vma_to_pfn() would return
an errno for vm_pgoff values that don't map device memory and the IOMMU
driver would release the reference?
It all seems rather ad-hoc.
> The implementation of such an op for vfio_pci is one line trivial, why
> do we need allocated memory and a entire shim layer instead?
>
> Shim layers are bad.
The only thing here I'd consider a shim layer is overriding vm_ops,
which just seemed like a cleaner and simpler solution than exporting
open/close functions and validating the bus driver installs them, and
the error path should they not.
> We still need a driver op of some kind because only the driver can
> convert a pg_off into a PFN. Remember the big point here is to remove
> the sketchy follow_pte()...
The bus driver simply writes the base_pfn value in the example
structure I outlined in its .mmap callback. I'm just looking for an
alternative place to store our former vm_pgoff in a way that doesn't
prevent using unmmap_mapping_range(). The IOMMU backend, once it has a
vfio_device via vfio_device_get_from_vma() can know the format of
vm_private_data, cast it as a vfio_vma_private_data and directly use
base_pfn, accomplishing the big point. They're all operating in the
agreed upon vm_private_data format. Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists