[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BL1PR11MB5271994848066586A098327F8C662@BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 00:48:31 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "j.granados@...sung.com" <j.granados@...sung.com>, David Woodhouse
<dwmw2@...radead.org>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel
<joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy
<robin.murphy@....com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Klaus Jensen
<its@...elevant.dk>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, Klaus Jensen
<k.jensen@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/5] iommu: Enable user space IOPFs in non-PASID and
non-svm cases
> From: Joel Granados via B4 Relay
> <devnull+j.granados.samsung.com@...nel.org>
>
> This series makes use of iommufd_hwpt_replace_device to execute
> non-pasid/non-svm user space IOPFs. Our main motivation is to enable
> user-space driver driven device verification without SVM/PASID.
can you elaborate why IOPFs are necessary to help verify such usage?
>
> What?
> * Enable IO page fault handling in user space for a non-pasid, non-svm
> and non-virtualised use case.
> * Move IOMMU_IOPF configuration from INTEL_IOMMU_SVM into
> INTEL_IOMMU.
> * Move all page request queue related logic to a new (prq.c) file.
> * Remove PASID checks from PRQ event handling as well as PRQ
> initialization.
> * Allow execution of IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC with a valid fault id
> (IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID)
> * Insert a zero handle into the PASID array in dev->iommu_group when
> replacing the old HWPT with an IOPF enabled HWPT.
the last bullet is stale now.
btw a selftest is expected too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists