[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB52760486306A90A208D7C6768CB59@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 03:50:22 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
CC: "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"marcan@...can.st" <marcan@...can.st>,
"sven@...npeter.dev" <sven@...npeter.dev>,
"robdclark@...il.com" <robdclark@...il.com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"orsonzhai@...il.com" <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
"baolin.wang7@...il.com" <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
"zhang.lyra@...il.com" <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"alyssa@...enzweig.io" <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"yong.wu@...iatek.com" <yong.wu@...iatek.com>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"vdumpa@...dia.com" <vdumpa@...dia.com>,
"jonathanh@...dia.com" <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"thunder.leizhen@...wei.com" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr" <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
"john.garry@...wei.com" <john.garry@...wei.com>,
"chenxiang66@...ilicon.com" <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>,
"saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org" <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
"isaacm@...eaurora.org" <isaacm@...eaurora.org>,
"yangyingliang@...wei.com" <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
"jordan@...micpenguin.net" <jordan@...micpenguin.net>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/5] vfio/iommu_type1: Remove the domain->ops
comparison
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 3:55 PM
>
> On 2022-06-16 23:23, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 06:40:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >
> >>> The domain->ops validation was added, as a precaution, for mixed-
> driver
> >>> systems. However, at this moment only one iommu driver is possible. So
> >>> remove it.
> >>
> >> It's true on a physical platform. But I'm not sure whether a virtual
> platform
> >> is allowed to include multiple e.g. one virtio-iommu alongside a virtual VT-
> d
> >> or a virtual smmu. It might be clearer to claim that (as Robin pointed out)
> >> there is plenty more significant problems than this to solve instead of
> simply
> >> saying that only one iommu driver is possible if we don't have explicit
> code
> >> to reject such configuration. 😊
> >
> > Will edit this part. Thanks!
>
> Oh, physical platforms with mixed IOMMUs definitely exist already. The
> main point is that while bus_set_iommu still exists, the core code
> effectively *does* prevent multiple drivers from registering - even in
> emulated cases like the example above, virtio-iommu and VT-d would both
> try to bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type), and one of them will lose. The
> aspect which might warrant clarification is that there's no combination
> of supported drivers which claim non-overlapping buses *and* could
> appear in the same system - even if you tried to contrive something by
> emulating, say, VT-d (PCI) alongside rockchip-iommu (platform), you
> could still only describe one or the other due to ACPI vs. Devicetree.
>
This explanation is much clearer! thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists