Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <2d516d37-960f-ed88-4395-6f5d58aa0009@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:49:25 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/11] iommu: Prepare IOMMU domain for IOPF
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
References: <20220621144353.17547-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220621144353.17547-10-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527687EE83BC26F08A7D99908CB89@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527687EE83BC26F08A7D99908CB89@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/6/28 16:29, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:44 PM
>> +/*
>> + * I/O page fault handler for SVA
>> + */
>> +enum iommu_page_response_code
>> +iommu_sva_handle_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, void *data)
>> +{
>> +	vm_fault_t ret;
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm;
>> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> +	unsigned int access_flags = 0;
>> +	struct iommu_domain *domain = data;
>> +	unsigned int fault_flags = FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE;
>> +	struct iommu_fault_page_request *prm = &fault->prm;
>> +	enum iommu_page_response_code status =
>> IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID;
>> +
>> +	if (!(prm->flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID))
>> +		return status;
>> +
>> +	mm = domain->mm;
> 
> What about directly passing domain->mm in as the fault data?
> 
> The entire logic here is only about mm instead of domain.

Yes. Updated.

Best regards,
baolu