[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19cfb1b85a347c70c6b0937bbbca4a176a724454.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:35:49 +0800
From: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"jordan@...micpenguin.net" <jordan@...micpenguin.net>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"alyssa@...enzweig.io" <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"zhang.lyra@...il.com" <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"jonathanh@...dia.com" <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"yangyingliang@...wei.com" <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
"orsonzhai@...il.com" <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
"gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr" <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"marcan@...can.st" <marcan@...can.st>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolin.wang7@...il.com" <baolin.wang7@...il.com>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] iommu: Return -EMEDIUMTYPE for incompatible
domain and device/group
On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 06:16 +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Yong Wu
> > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 1:39 PM
> >
> > On Thu, 2022-06-23 at 19:44 -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 09:35:49AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2022/6/24 04:00, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu_v1.c
> > > > > b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu_v1.c
> > > > > index e1cb51b9866c..5386d889429d 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu_v1.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu_v1.c
> > > > > @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static int
> > > > > mtk_iommu_v1_attach_device(struct
> > > > > iommu_domain *domain, struct device
> > > > > /* Only allow the domain created internally. */
> > > > > mtk_mapping = data->mapping;
> > > > > if (mtk_mapping->domain != domain)
> > > > > - return 0;
> > > > > + return -EMEDIUMTYPE;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!data->m4u_dom) {
> > > > > data->m4u_dom = dom;
> > > >
> > > > This change looks odd. It turns the return value from success
> > > > to
> > > > failure. Is it a bug? If so, it should go through a separated
> > > > fix
> > > > patch.
> >
> > Thanks for the review:)
> >
> > >
> > > Makes sense.
> > >
> > > I read the commit log of the original change:
> > >
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/1589530123-30240-1-git-send-email-
> > yong.wu@...iatek.com
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to allow devices to get attached to different
> > > domains other than the shared mapping->domain, created in the
> > > in the mtk_iommu_probe_device(). So it looks like returning 0
> > > is intentional. Though I am still very confused by this return
> > > value here, I doubt it has ever been used in a VFIO context.
> >
> > It's not used in VFIO context. "return 0" just satisfy the iommu
> > framework to go ahead. and yes, here we only allow the shared
> > "mapping-
> > > domain" (All the devices share a domain created internally).
> >
> > thus I think we should still keep "return 0" here.
> >
>
> What prevent this driver from being used in VFIO context?
Nothing prevent this. Just I didn't test. mtk_iommu_v1.c only is used
in mt2701 and there is no VFIO scenario. I'm not sure if it supports
VFIO. (mtk_iommu.c support VFIO.)
> and why would we want to go ahead when an obvious error occurs
> i.e. when a device is attached to an unexpected domain?
The iommu flow in this file always is a bit odd as we need share iommu
domain in ARM32. As I tested before in the above link, "The iommu
framework will create a iommu domain for each a device.", therefore we
have to *workaround* in this file.
And this was expected to be fixed by:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/cover.1597931875.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/
sorry, I don't know its current status.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists