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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:13:24 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        "chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
        "peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
        "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] iommufd: Add nesting infrastructure
Message-ID: <ZJMvtMe5QHPM0OEJ@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230511143844.22693-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276DAF0A11809CF8433EE338C7C9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZGdiS2m8jcd5OOt5@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276A74B2DA86C79908A420B8C419@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZH9AGWf1yRDu/86q@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52763C7B838B04D3200322FD8C58A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZJBL8QLLBiwRsUSI@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527663567ECB8AD52D3170818C5CA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZJGf3sgLKr9HLZuE@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276B852A32F53BE8EAA1A7D8C5DA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276B852A32F53BE8EAA1A7D8C5DA@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2023 17:13:49.2944
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 54abb680-5565-4595-e8d7-08db727ae149
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA2PEPF000015CD.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO6PR12MB5428
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 06:02:21AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:

> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 01:43:42AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > I wonder whether we have argued passed each other.
> > >
> > > This series adds reserved regions to S2. I challenged the necessity as
> > > S2 is not directly accessed by the device.
> > >
> > > Then you replied that doing so still made sense to support identity
> > > S1.
> >
> > I think I said/ment if we attach the "s2" iommu domain as a direct
> > attach for identity - eg at boot time, then the IOAS must gain the
> > reserved regions. This is our normal protocol.
> >
> > But when we use the "s2" iommu domain as an actual nested S2 then we
> > don't gain reserved regions.
> 
> Then we're aligned.
> 
> Yi/Nicolin, please update this series to not automatically add reserved
> regions to S2 in the nesting configuration.

I'm a bit late for the conversation here. Yet, how about the
IOMMU_RESV_SW_MSI on ARM in the nesting configuration? We'd
still call iommufd_group_setup_msi() on the S2 HWPT, despite
attaching the device to a nested S1 HWPT right?

> It also implies that the user cannot rely on IOAS_IOVA_RANGES to
> learn reserved regions for arranging addresses in S1.
> 
> Then we also need a new ioctl to report reserved regions per dev_id.

So, in a nesting configuration, QEMU would poll a device's S2
MSI region (i.e. IOMMU_RESV_SW_MSI) to prevent conflict?

Thanks
Nic