[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210617231004.GA1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:10:04 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)"
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Plan for /dev/ioasid RFC v2
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:45:46PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 09:39:19AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:58:18AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > - Device-centric (Jason) vs. group-centric (David) uAPI. David is not fully
> > > > convinced yet. Based on discussion v2 will continue to have ioasid uAPI
> > > > being device-centric (but it's fine for vfio to be group-centric). A new
> > > > section will be added to elaborate this part;
> > >
> > > I would vote for group-centric here. Or do the reasons for which VFIO is
> > > group-centric not apply to IOASID? If so, why?
> >
> > VFIO being group centric has made it very ugly/difficult to inject
> > device driver specific knowledge into the scheme.
> >
> > The device driver is the only thing that knows to ask:
> > - I need a SW table for this ioasid because I am like a mdev
> > - I will issue TLPs with PASID
> > - I need a IOASID linked to a PASID
> > - I am a devices that uses ENQCMD and vPASID
> > - etc in future
>
> mdev drivers might know these, but shim drivers, like basic vfio-pci
> often won't.
The generic drivers say 'I will do every kind of DMA possible', which
is in-of-itself a special kind of information to convey.
There are alot of weird corners to think about here, like what if the
guest asks for a PASID on a mdev that doesn't support PASID, but
hooked to a RID that does or other quite nonsense combinations. These
need to be blocked/handled/whatever properly, which is made much
easier if the common code actually knows detail about what is going
on.
> I still think you're having a tendency to partially conflate several
> meanings of "group":
> 1. the unavoidable hardware unit of non-isolation
> 2. the kernel internal concept and interface to it
> 3. the user visible fd and interface
I think I have those pretty clearly seperated :)
> We can't avoid having (1) somewhere, (3) and to a lesser extent (2)
> are what you object to.
I don't like (3) either, and am yet to hear a definitive reason why we
must have it..
> > The current approach has the group try to guess the device driver
> > intention in the vfio type 1 code.
>
> I agree this has gotten ugly. What I'm not yet convinced of is that
> reworking groups to make this not-ugly necessarily requires totally
> minimizing the importance of groups.
I think it does - we can't have the group in the middle and still put
the driver in chrage, it doesn't really work.
At least if someone can see an arrangement otherwise lets hear it -
start with how to keep groups and remove the mdev hackery from type1..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists