Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:09:00 +0200
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@intel.com>,
        "Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@intel.com>,
        "peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
        "stefanha@gmail.com" <stefanha@gmail.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/15] iommu/smmu: Report empty domain nesting info
Message-ID: <20200717090900.GC4850@myrica>
References: <1594552870-55687-1-git-send-email-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <1594552870-55687-4-git-send-email-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20200713131454.GA2739@willie-the-truck>
 <CY4PR11MB1432226D0A52D099249E95A0C3610@CY4PR11MB1432.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200716153959.GA447208@myrica>
 <f3779a69-0295-d668-5f2f-746b6ff2bdce@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f3779a69-0295-d668-5f2f-746b6ff2bdce@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:38:17PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On 7/16/20 5:39 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:12:49AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> >>> Have you verified that this doesn't break the existing usage of
> >>> DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING in drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c?
> >>
> >> I didn't have ARM machine on my hand. But I contacted with Jean
> >> Philippe, he confirmed no compiling issue. I didn't see any code
> >> getting DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING attr in current drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c.
> >> What I'm adding is to call iommu_domai_get_attr(, DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTIN)
> >> and won't fail if the iommu_domai_get_attr() returns 0. This patch
> >> returns an empty nesting info for DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTIN and return
> >> value is 0 if no error. So I guess it won't fail nesting for ARM.
> > 
> > I confirm that this series doesn't break the current support for
> > VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_NESTING with an SMMUv3. That said...
> > 
> > If the SMMU does not support stage-2 then there is a change in behavior
> > (untested): after the domain is silently switched to stage-1 by the SMMU
> > driver, VFIO will now query nesting info and obtain -ENODEV. Instead of
> > succeding as before, the VFIO ioctl will now fail. I believe that's a fix
> > rather than a regression, it should have been like this since the
> > beginning. No known userspace has been using VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_NESTING so
> > far, so I don't think it should be a concern.
> But as Yi mentioned ealier, in the current vfio code there is no
> DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING query yet.

That's why something that would have succeeded before will now fail:
Before this series, if user asked for a VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_NESTING, it would
have succeeded even if the SMMU didn't support stage-2, as the driver
would have silently fallen back on stage-1 mappings (which work exactly
the same as stage-2-only since there was no nesting supported). After the
series, we do check for DOMAIN_ATTR_NESTING so if user asks for
VFIO_IOMMU_TYPE1_NESTING and the SMMU doesn't support stage-2, the ioctl
fails.

I believe it's a good fix and completely harmless, but wanted to make sure
no one objects because it's an ABI change.

Thanks,
Jean

> In my SMMUV3 nested stage series, I added
> such a query in vfio-pci.c to detect if I need to expose a fault region
> but I already test both the returned value and the output arg. So to me
> there is no issue with that change.
> > 
> > And if userspace queries the nesting properties using the new ABI
> > introduced in this patchset, it will obtain an empty struct. I think
> > that's acceptable, but it may be better to avoid adding the nesting cap if
> > @format is 0?
> agreed
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Eric
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jean
> > 
> >>
> >> @Eric, how about your opinion? your dual-stage vSMMU support may
> >> also share the vfio_iommu_type1.c code.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Yi Liu
> >>
> >>> Will
> > 
>