[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211119125618.GU2105516@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:56:18 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] iommu: Add device dma ownership set/release
interfaces
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 05:44:35AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Well, the difference is just in literal. I don't know the background
> why the existing iommu_attach_device() users want to do it this
> way. But given the condition in iommu_attach_device() it could
> in theory imply some unknown hardware-level side effect which
> may break the desired functionality once the group size grows
> beyond singleton. Is it a real case? I don't know...
No, this must not be.
Any device can have VFIO attached to it, and VFIO does the equivalent
of iommu_attach_device(). We cannot have "unknown hardware-level side
effects" to changing the domain's of multi device groups and also have
working VFIO.
If these HW problems exist they are a seperate issue and the iommu
core should flag such groups as being unable to change their domains
at all.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists