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:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:02:06 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "Yi Liu" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHES 00/17] IOMMUFD: Deliver IO page faults to user space
Message-ID: <ZJnSnuUkkwBVNT80@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230530053724.232765-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <ZHZFi28jRxeZMKK3@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <a8ccbac8-c456-d116-24a2-7503ccbb720c@linux.intel.com>
 <ZJiTuO/9Bs4hMAiC@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <e374e0be-3e29-3128-b3df-6183a7a0e98e@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e374e0be-3e29-3128-b3df-6183a7a0e98e@linux.intel.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2023 18:02:17.8256
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 53b20981-70c7-4eb0-af24-08db766f7afb
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: DM6NAM11FT010.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR12MB6565
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 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 Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:10:22AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:

> > > > I think that, whether the guest has an IOPF capability or not,
> > > > the host should always forward any stage-1 fault/error back to
> > > > the guest. Yet, the implementation of this series builds with
> > > > the IOPF framework that doesn't report IOMMU_FAULT_DMA_UNRECOV.
> > > > 
> > > > And I have my doubt at the using the IOPF framework with that
> > > > IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_ASYNC flag: using the IOPF framework is for
> > > > its bottom half workqueue, because a page response could take
> > > > a long cycle. But adding that flag feels like we don't really
> > > > need the bottom half workqueue, i.e. losing the point of using
> > > > the IOPF framework, IMHO.
> > > > 
> > > > Combining the two facts above, I wonder if we really need to
> > > > go through the IOPF framework; can't we just register a user
> > > > fault handler in the iommufd directly upon a valid event_fd?
> > > Agreed. We should avoid workqueue in sva iopf framework. Perhaps we
> > > could go ahead with below code? It will be registered to device with
> > > iommu_register_device_fault_handler() in IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_IOPF enabling
> > > path. Un-registering in the disable path of cause.
> > Well, for a virtualization use case, I still think it's should
> > be registered in iommufd.
> 
> Emm.. you suggest iommufd calls iommu_register_device_fault_handler() to
> register its own page fault handler, right?
> 
> I have a different opinion, iommu_register_device_fault_handler() is
> called to register a fault handler for a device. It should be called
> or initiated by a device driver. The iommufd only needs to install a
> per-domain io page fault handler.
> 
> I am considering a use case on Intel platform. Perhaps it's similar
> on other platforms. An SIOV-capable device can support host SVA and
> assigning mediated devices to user space at the same time. Both host
> SVA and mediated devices require IOPF. So there will be multiple places
> where a page fault handler needs to be registered.

Okay, the narrative makes sense to me. I was more thinking of
the nesting case. The iommu_register_device_fault_handler() is
registered per device, as its name implies, while the handler
probably should be slightly different by the attaching domain.

It seems that your io_pgfault_handler() in the previous email
can potentially handle this, i.e. a IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED could
set domain->iopf_handler to forward DMA faults to user space.
We just need to make sure this pathway would be unconditional
at the handler registration and fault->type.

> > Having a device without an IOPF/PRI
> > capability, a guest OS should receive some faults too, if that
> > device causes a translation failure.
> 
> Yes. DMA faults are also a consideration. But I would like to have it
> supported in a separated series. As I explained in the previous reply,
> we also need to consider the software nested translation case.

I see.

Thanks
Nic