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:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:55:14 +0100
From:   Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
To:     Vivek Kumar Gautam <vivek.gautam@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, joro@8bytes.org,
        will.deacon@arm.com, mst@redhat.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        eric.auger@redhat.com, kevin.tian@intel.com,
        jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, yi.l.liu@intel.com,
        Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 10/11] uapi/virtio-iommu: Add a new request type
 to send page response
Message-ID: <YV1ygu5URvuHB4qb@myrica>
References: <20210423095147.27922-1-vivek.gautam@arm.com>
 <20210423095147.27922-11-vivek.gautam@arm.com>
 <YUoFSrAK2gi3GWp/@myrica>
 <d40ea85b-3612-10b3-0add-40d07e6d9ca5@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d40ea85b-3612-10b3-0add-40d07e6d9ca5@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:54:05PM +0530, Vivek Kumar Gautam wrote:
> > > +struct virtio_iommu_req_page_resp {
> > > +	struct virtio_iommu_req_head		head;
> > > +	__le32					domain;
> > 
> > I don't think we need this field, since the fault report doesn't come with
> > a domain.
> 
> But here we are sending the response which would be consumed by the vfio
> ultimately. In kvmtool, I am consuming this "virtio_iommu_req_page_resp"
> request in the virtio/iommu driver, extracting the domain from it, and using
> that to call the respective "page_response" ops from "vfio_iommu_ops" in the
> vfio/core driver.
> 
> Is this incorrect way of passing on the page-response back to the host
> kernel?

That works for the host userspace-kernel interface because the device is
always attached to a VFIO container.

For virtio-iommu the domain info is redundant. The endpoint information
needs to be kept through the whole response path in order to target the
right endpoint in the end. In addition the guest could enable PRI without
attaching the endpoint to a domain, or fail to disable PRI before
detaching the endpoint. Sure it's weird, but the host can still inject the
recoverable page fault in this case, and the guest answers with "invalid"
status but no domain. We could mandate domains for recoverable faults but
that forces a synchronization against attach/detach and I think it
needlessly deviates from other IOMMUs.

Thanks,
Jean