Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 21:26:55 -0800
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.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: <ZAq/n4PNeow6wftN@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <cover.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <364cfbe5b228ab178093db2de13fa3accf7a6120.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <20230309134217.GA1673607@myrica>
 <213a05ef06944a55a148995053b187f8@huawei.com>
 <ZAn94BXkjiJKQ66O@nvidia.com>
 <39979642ba8042ba9d4de651fecfeffb@huawei.com>
 <ZAoCf9+kpMof6R+4@nvidia.com>
 <4c1f57adbe0c4d48849d585508595939@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4c1f57adbe0c4d48849d585508595939@huawei.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2023 05:27:11.3890
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b3eae554-9d5e-49ec-1710-08db212819a1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT037.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN0PR12MB5857
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:07:54PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@nvidia.com]
> > Sent: 09 March 2023 16:00
> > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>; Nicolin Chen
> > <nicolinc@nvidia.com>; robin.murphy@arm.com; will@kernel.org;
> > eric.auger@redhat.com; kevin.tian@intel.com; baolu.lu@linux.intel.com;
> > joro@8bytes.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> > iommu@lists.linux.dev; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; yi.l.liu@intel.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/14] iommufd: Add nesting related data structures
> > for ARM SMMUv3
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Is there any use of VMID outside SMMUv3? I was thinking if nested domain
> > alloc
> > > doesn't provide the KVM instance, then SMMUv3 can use its internal VMID.
> >
> > When we talk about exposing an SMMUv3 IOMMU CMDQ directly to
> > userspace then
> > VMID is the security token that protects it.
> >
> > So in that environment every domain under the same iommufd should
> > share the same VMID so that the CMDQ's also share the same VMID.
> >
> > I expect this to be a common sort of requirement as we will see
> > userspace command queues in the other HW as well.
> >
> > So, I suppose the answer for now is that ARM SMMUv3 should just
> > allocate one VMID per iommu_domain and there should be no VMID in the
> > uapi at all.
> >
> > Moving all iommu_domains to share the same VMID is a future patch.
> >
> > Though.. I have no idea how vVMID is handled in the SMMUv3
> > architecture. I suppose the guest IOMMU HW caps are set in a way that
> > it knows it does not have VMID?
> 
> I think, Guest only sets up the SMMUv3 S1 stage and it doesn't use VMID.

Yea, a vmid is only allocated in an S2 domain allocation. So,
a guest allocating only S1 domains always sets VMID=0. Yet, I
think that the hypervisor or some where in host kernel should
replace the VMID=0 with a unified VMID.

Thanks
Nic