[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZJLn/d4UHAejDSgL@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:07:25 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] iommufd: Add nesting infrastructure
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 08:29:09AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:47 PM
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] iommufd: Add nesting infrastructure
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 01:43:42AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> I wonder whether we have argued passed each other.
> >>
> >> This series adds reserved regions to S2. I challenged the necessity as
> >> S2 is not directly accessed by the device.
> >>
> >> Then you replied that doing so still made sense to support identity
> >> S1.
> >
> >I think I said/ment if we attach the "s2" iommu domain as a direct attach for
> >identity - eg at boot time, then the IOAS must gain the reserved regions. This is
> >our normal protocol.
> There is code to fail the attaching for device with RMRR in intel iommu driver,
> do we plan to remove below check for IOMMUFD soon or later?
>
> static int intel_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> struct device *dev)
> {
> struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> int ret;
>
> if (domain->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_UNMANAGED &&
> device_is_rmrr_locked(dev)) {
> dev_warn(dev, "Device is ineligible for IOMMU domain attach due to platform RMRR requirement. Contact your platform vendor.\n");
> return -EPERM;
> }
Not really, systems with RMRR cannot support VFIO at all. Baolu sent a
series lifting this restriction up higher in the stack:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230607035145.343698-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com/
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists