Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.118.232 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.118.232; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 21:18:53 -0800
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kevin.tian@intel.com" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "yi.l.liu@intel.com" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/14] iommufd: Add nesting related data structures
 for ARM SMMUv3
Message-ID: <ZAq9veG5c48V6lIu@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <cover.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <364cfbe5b228ab178093db2de13fa3accf7a6120.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <20230309134217.GA1673607@myrica>
 <213a05ef06944a55a148995053b187f8@huawei.com>
 <ZAn94BXkjiJKQ66O@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAn94BXkjiJKQ66O@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2023 05:18:56.6480
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8df17e05-b8ca-42f7-359b-08db2126f2bb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.118.232];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT079.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH8PR12MB8605
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:40:16AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:26:12PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> 
> > On platforms that supports BTM [1], we may need the VMID allocated by KVM.
> > But again getting that from user pace doesn't look safe. I have attempted to revise
> > the earlier RFC to pin and use the KVM VMID from SMMUv3 here[2].
> 
> Gurk
> 
> > " In the new design we can require from the start that creating a nesting IOMMU
> > container through /dev/iommu *must* come with a KVM context, that way
> > we're sure to reuse the existing VMID. "
> 
> I've been dreading this but yes I execpt we will eventually need to
> connect kvm and iommufd together. The iommu driver can receive a kvm
> pointer as part of the alloc domain operation to do any setups like
> this.
> 
> If there is no KVM it should either fail to setup the domain or setup
> a domain disconnected from KVM.
> 
> If IOMMU HW and KVM HW are using the same ID number space then
> arguably the two kernel drivers need to use a shared ID allocator in
> the arch, regardless of what iommufd/etc does. Using KVM should not be
> mandatory for iommufd.
> 
> For ARM cases where there is no shared VMID space with KVM, the ARM
> VMID should be somehow assigned to the iommfd_ctx itself and the alloc
> domain op should receive it from there.
> 
> Nicolin, that seems to be missing in this series? I'm not entirely
> sure how to elegantly code it :\

Yea, it's missing. The VMID thing is supposed to be a sneak peek
of my next VCMDQ solution. Now it seems that BTM needs this too.

Remember that my previous VCMDQ series had a big complication to
share VMID across the passthrough devices in the same VM? During
that patch review, we concluded that IOMMUFD would simply align
VMIDs using a unified ctx ID or so, IIRC.

Thanks
Nic