[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZS1+VMEo+0bCecui@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:17:56 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<alex.williamson@...hat.com>, <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
<robin.murphy@....com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
<cohuck@...hat.com>, <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
<chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>, <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
<peterx@...hat.com>, <jasowang@...hat.com>,
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, <lulu@...hat.com>,
<suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>, <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] iommu: Add hwpt_type with user_data for
domain_alloc_user op
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:54:07AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:28:15AM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > On 2023/10/14 01:56, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:04:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:33:13PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > not really. Below the users of the struct iommu_user_data in my current
> > > > > iommufd_nesting branch. Only the domain_alloc_user op has type as there
> > > > > can be multiple vendor specific alloc data types. Basically, I'm ok to
> > > > > make the change you suggested, just not sure if it is good to add type
> > > > > as it is only needed by one path.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we should ever have an opaque data blob without a type
> > > > tag..
> > >
> > > I can add those "missing" data types, and then a driver will be
> > > responsible for sanitizing the type along with the data_len.
> > >
> > > I notice that the enum iommu_hwpt_data_type in the posted patch
> > > is confined to the alloc_user uAPI. Perhaps we should share it
> > > with invalidate too:
> >
> > invalidation path does not need a type field today as the data
> > type is vendor specific, vendor driver should know the data type
> > when calls in.
>
> I'm not keen on that, what if a driver needs another type in the
> future? You'd want to make the invalidation data format part of the
> domain allocation?
The invalidation data has hwpt_id so it's tied to a hwpt and its
hwpt->domain. Would it be reasonable to have a different type of
invalidation data for the same type of hwpt?
With this being asked, I added it for our next version. At this
moment, it only does a sanity job:
// API
__iommu_copy_struct_from_user(void *dst_data,
const struct iommu_user_data *src_data,
unsigned int data_type, size_t data_len,
size_t min_len)
{
if (src_data->type != data_type)
return -EINVAL;
// Caller
rc = iommu_copy_struct_from_user(&user_cfg, user_data,
IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_SELFTEST, iotlb);
if (rc)
return ERR_PTR(rc);
Thanks
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists