[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0bdae2ca-a200-4db1-a016-059730d1545e@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:08:11 +0800
From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "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>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>,
"joao.m.martins@...cle.com" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
"Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>,
"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] vfio: Report PASID capability via VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE
ioctl
On 2023/12/7 16:47, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
>> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 2:39 PM
>>
>> +static int vfio_pci_core_feature_pasid(struct vfio_device *device, u32 flags,
>> + struct vfio_device_feature_pasid __user
>> *arg,
>> + size_t argsz)
>> +{
>> + struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev =
>> + container_of(device, struct vfio_pci_core_device, vdev);
>> + struct vfio_device_feature_pasid pasid = { 0 };
>> + struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
>> + u32 capabilities = 0;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /* We do not support SET of the PASID capability */
>
> this line alone is meaningless. Please explain the reason e.g. due to
> no PASID capability per VF...
sure. I think the major reason is we don't allow userspace to change the
PASID configuration. is it?
>
>> + ret = vfio_check_feature(flags, argsz, VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_GET,
>> + sizeof(pasid));
>> + if (ret != 1)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Needs go to PF if the device is VF as VF shares its PF's
>> + * PASID Capability.
>> + */
>
> /* VF shares the PASID capability of its PF */
got it.
>> + if (pdev->is_virtfn)
>> + pdev = pci_physfn(pdev);
>> +
>> + if (!pdev->pasid_enabled)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_PASID
>> + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
>> + &capabilities);
>> +#endif
>
> #ifdef is unnecessary. If CONFIG_PCI_PASID is false pdev->pasid_enabled
> won't be set anyway.
it's sad that the pdev->pasid_cap is defined under #if CONFIG_PCI_PASID.
Perhaps we can have a wrapper for it.
> and it should read from PCI_PASID_CTRL which indicates whether a
> capability is actually enabled.
yes, for the EXEC and PRIV capability, needs to check if it's enabled or
not before reporting.
>
>> +/**
>> + * Upon VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_GET, return the PASID capability for the
>> device.
>> + * Zero width means no support for PASID.
>
> also mention the encoding of this field according to PCIe spec.
yes.
> or turn it to a plain number field.
It is not exact the same as the spec since bit0 is reserved. But
here bit0 is used as well.
>> + */
>> +struct vfio_device_feature_pasid {
>> + __u16 capabilities;
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_PASID_CAP_EXEC (1 << 0)
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_PASID_CAP_PRIV (1 << 1)
>> + __u8 width;
>> + __u8 __reserved;
>> +};
>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_PASID 11
>> +
>> /* -------- API for Type1 VFIO IOMMU -------- */
>>
>> /**
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>
--
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists