Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
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:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:44:56 -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 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on
 kernel-managed domains
Message-ID: <ZSnkiKoCspmG1+/j@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230921075138.124099-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20230921075138.124099-9-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527658EAF017FF3576667EEA8CC3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB527658EAF017FF3576667EEA8CC3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2023 00:45:03.8999
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73b682e9-8c34-4dc7-b9d6-08dbcc4ece1c
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: DS1PEPF0001708F.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR12MB5734
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 morse.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 (morse.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:45:41 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:16:35AM -0700, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:51 PM
> >
> > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Now enforce_cache_coherency and msi_cookie are kernel-managed hwpt
> > things.
> > So, they should be only setup on kernel-managed domains. If the attaching
> > domain is a user-managed domain, redirect the hwpt to hwpt->parent to do
> > it correctly.
> >
> 
> No redirection. The parent should already have the configuration done
> when it's created. It shouldn't be triggered in the nesting path.

iommufd_hw_pagetable_enforce_cc() is not only called in alloc(),
but also in hwpt_attach/replace() if cc is not enforced by the
alloc() because the idev that initiates the hwpt_alloc() might
not have idev->enforce_cache_coherency. Only when another idev
that has idev->enforce_cache_coherency attaches to the shared
hwpt, the cc configuration would be done.

In a nesting case encountering the same situation above, the S2
hwpt is allocated without the iommufd_hw_pagetable_enforce_cc().
But the 2nd idev that has idev->enforce_cache_coherency might
attach directly to the S1 domain/hwpt without touching the S2
domain (for the same VM, S2 domain can be shared). In this case,
without a redirection, the iommufd_hw_pagetable_enforce_cc()
would be missed.

Any thought?

Nic