[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB5433DCBE6DE1EC27CFB9D3738C039@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:03:56 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@...hat.com)"
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Jean-Philippe Brucker" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
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
Hi, Jason,
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 10:36 PM
>
> The only thing that needs to be done to get the 1:1 step is to broadly
> define how the other two cases will work so we don't get into trouble
> and set some way to exclude the problematic cases from even getting to
> iommu_fd in the first place.
>
> For instance if we go ahead and create /dev/vfio/device nodes we could
> do this only if the group was 1:1, otherwise the group cdev has to be
> used, along with its API.
>
I may misunderstand your position in last reply.
The bottom line is that iommu fd uAPI and helper functions should be
device-centric (no group fd carried). This is what this sketch tries to
achieve.
However I'm getting confused on your position on vfio uAPIs.
At some point I feel you are OK to keep vfio group fd:
"For others, I don't think this is *strictly* necessary, we can
probably still get to the device_fd using the group_fd and fit in
/dev/ioasid. It does make the rest of this more readable though."
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/PH0PR12MB54811863B392C644E5365446DC3E9@PH0PR12MB5481.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/T/#m1b1d2b4d6413e3b32ba972a97c2c6a16bf491796
But you are also obviously against faking group for mdev.
Combining with the last paragraph above, are you actually suggesting
that 1:1 group (including mdev) should use a new device-centric vfio
uAPI (without group fd) while existing group-centric vfio uAPI is only
kept for 1:N group (with slight semantics change in my sketch to match
device-centric iommu fd API)?
If yes, some assumptions in this sketch might be changed. For example,
with /dev/vfio/device node I'm not sure how the user can pass {iommu_fd,
device_cookie} to establish the security context when opening the node
(not via an indirect group ioctl). Then it implies that we may have to allow
the user open a device before it is put into a security context, thus the
safe guard may have to be enabled on mmap() for 1:1 group. This is a
different sequence from the existing group-centric model.
Anyway, appreciate if you can elaborate your thoughts so we can further
think about them.
Thanks
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists