Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
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:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:08:46 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
CC:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.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>,
        "Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/17] iommufd: Add user-managed hw_pagetable support
Message-ID: <ZSncDu7enQs5e7Pi@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230921075138.124099-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20230921075138.124099-8-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52765F6D764B0C621A2D3FEC8CC3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB52765F6D764B0C621A2D3FEC8CC3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2023 00:08:56.7595
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 21286eeb-9f4e-4170-2136-08dbcc49c26a
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: BL6PEPF0001AB71.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN7PR12MB8820
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on agentk.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (agentk.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:09:19 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:14:47AM -0700, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:51 PM
> >
> > +static void iommufd_user_managed_hwpt_abort(struct iommufd_object
> > *obj)
> > +{
> > +     struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt =
> > +             container_of(obj, struct iommufd_hw_pagetable, obj);
> > +
> > +     /* The parent->mutex must be held until finalize is called. */
> > +     lockdep_assert_held(&hwpt->parent->mutex);
> > +
> > +     iommufd_hw_pagetable_destroy(obj);
> > +}
> 
> Can you elaborate what exactly is protected by parent->mutex?
> 
> My gut-feeling that the child just grabs a refcnt on the parent
> object. It doesn't change any other data of the parent.

Ah, you are right. It's added here just for symmetry so we wouldn't
end up with something like:
	if (!hwpt->user_managed)
		mutex_lock(&hwpt->mutex);
	alloc_fn();
	if (!hwpt->user_managed)
		mutex_unlock(&hwpt->mutex);

Perhaps I should move the pair of mutex calls to the kernel-managed
hwpt allocator.

> > +/**
> > + * iommufd_user_managed_hwpt_alloc() - Get a user-managed
> > hw_pagetable
> > + * @ictx: iommufd context
> > + * @pt_obj: Parent object to an HWPT to associate the domain with
> > + * @idev: Device to get an iommu_domain for
> > + * @flags: Flags from userspace
> > + * @hwpt_type: Requested type of hw_pagetable
> > + * @user_data: user_data pointer
> > + * @dummy: never used
> > + *
> > + * Allocate a new iommu_domain (must be IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED) and
> > return it as
> > + * a user-managed hw_pagetable.
> 
> Add some text to highlight the requirement being a parent, e.g. not
> an auto domain, must be capable of being a parent, etc.

OK.

> > +     case IOMMUFD_OBJ_HW_PAGETABLE:
> > +             parent = container_of(pt_obj, struct iommufd_hw_pagetable,
> > obj);
> > +             /* No user-managed HWPT on top of an user-managed one
> > */
> > +             if (parent->user_managed) {
> > +                     rc = -EINVAL;
> > +                     goto out_put_pt;
> > +             }
> 
> move to alloc_fn().

Though being a bit covert, this is actually to avoid a data buffer
allocation in the common pathway before calling alloc_fn(), which
is added in the following patch. And the reason why it's in the
common function is because we previously support a kernel-managed
hwpt allocation with data too.

But now, I think we can just move this sanity and data allocation
together into the user-managed hwpt allocator.

Thanks
Nicolin