[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 02:20:01 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...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
> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:08 PM
>
> 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?
if only PF it's still possible to develop a model allowing userspace to
change.
but with VF this is not possible in concept.
> >> + 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.
oh I didn't note 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.
>
what is bit0 used for?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists