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
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 18:22:17 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Michael Shavit <mshavit@google.com>
CC:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>, <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        <jgg@nvidia.com>, <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/13] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add smmu_s1_cfg to
 smmu_master
Message-ID: <ZK9RycgNAVrxe343@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230621063825.268890-1-mshavit@google.com>
 <20230621063825.268890-3-mshavit@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230621063825.268890-3-mshavit@google.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2023 01:22:32.2334
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 305874b4-8872-4a0b-9856-08db833fa1d5
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: BN8NAM11FT019.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ2PR12MB7989
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_BLOCKED,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

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 02:37:14PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote:
 
> Except for Nested domains, arm_smmu_master will own the STEs that are
> inserted into the arm_smmu_device's STE table.

I think that the master still owns an STE when attached to a
nested domain. Though an IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED iommu_domain is
an opaque object to the STE in the guest, the host still has
a real STE for the nested configuration somewhere -- and it's
likely still to be owned by the master that's attached to the
opaque NESTED iommu_domain in the host kernel.

> -static int arm_smmu_alloc_cd_tables(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain)
> +static int arm_smmu_init_s1_cfg(struct arm_smmu_master *master,
> +                               struct arm_smmu_s1_cfg *cfg)

We here pass in an s1_cfg ptr because we expect someone else
rather than the master could own the s1_cfg?

But the final codeline by the end of this series seems that
only master owns an s1_cfg. So perhaps we could re-organize
the patches to clean this away, as the cfg always comes from
a master?

> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> index 68d519f21dbd8..053cc14c23969 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
> @@ -688,6 +688,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_master {
>         struct arm_smmu_domain          *domain;
>         struct list_head                domain_head;
>         struct arm_smmu_stream          *streams;
> +       struct arm_smmu_s1_cfg          owned_s1_cfg;

I am a bit confused by this naming. If only master would own
an s1_cfg, perhaps we can just make it "s1_cfg" and drop the
s1_cfg pointer in the next patch.

Thanks
Nicolin