[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241014192436.GD1825128@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:24:36 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] iommu/vt-d: Enhance compatibility check for paging
domain attach
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:25:03AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > + if (domain->type & __IOMMU_DOMAIN_PAGING) {
> >
> > It looks like this entire function is already never called for
> > anything but paging?
> >
> > The only three callers are:
> >
> > .default_domain_ops = &(const struct iommu_domain_ops) {
> > .attach_dev = intel_iommu_attach_device,
> > .set_dev_pasid = intel_iommu_set_dev_pasid,
> >
> > and
> >
> > static const struct iommu_domain_ops intel_nested_domain_ops = {
> > .attach_dev = intel_nested_attach_dev,
> >
> > And none of those cases can be anything except a paging domain by
> > definition.
>
> A nested domain is not a paging domain. It represents a user-space page
> table that nested on a parent paging domain. Perhaps I overlooked
> anything?
It only calls it on the s2_parent which is always a paging domain?
ret = prepare_domain_attach_device(&dmar_domain->s2_domain->domain, dev);
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists