Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
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:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:17:56 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>,
        <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        <cohuck@redhat.com>, <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>, <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
        <peterx@redhat.com>, <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, <lulu@redhat.com>,
        <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>, <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/17] iommu: Add hwpt_type with user_data for
 domain_alloc_user op
Message-ID: <ZS1+VMEo+0bCecui@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230921075138.124099-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20230921075138.124099-2-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20231010165844.GQ3952@nvidia.com>
 <03ba68e9-33ef-35c1-5720-8f559f94f8a1@intel.com>
 <20231012133917.GL3952@nvidia.com>
 <3659d9a7-d9e9-bb73-daf5-41c765e99c8c@intel.com>
 <20231013140456.GR3952@nvidia.com>
 <ZSmE6unIukqJ3GKu@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <79f0cab5-39ad-3d98-3896-6e1ba7b8db21@intel.com>
 <20231016115407.GO3952@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231016115407.GO3952@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2023 18:18:07.2123
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 27815492-55dd-4543-102c-08dbce743f17
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: CO1PEPF000042AD.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CH2PR12MB4037
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 lipwig.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 (lipwig.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:54:07AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:28:15AM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > On 2023/10/14 01:56, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:04:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:33:13PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > not really. Below the users of the struct iommu_user_data in my current
> > > > > iommufd_nesting branch. Only the domain_alloc_user op has type as there
> > > > > can be multiple vendor specific alloc data types. Basically, I'm ok to
> > > > > make the change you suggested, just not sure if it is good to add type
> > > > > as it is only needed by one path.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think we should ever have an opaque data blob without a type
> > > > tag..
> > > 
> > > I can add those "missing" data types, and then a driver will be
> > > responsible for sanitizing the type along with the data_len.
> > > 
> > > I notice that the enum iommu_hwpt_data_type in the posted patch
> > > is confined to the alloc_user uAPI. Perhaps we should share it
> > > with invalidate too:
> > 
> > invalidation path does not need a type field today as the data
> > type is vendor specific, vendor driver should know the data type
> > when calls in.
> 
> I'm not keen on that, what if a driver needs another type in the
> future?  You'd want to make the invalidation data format part of the
> domain allocation?

The invalidation data has hwpt_id so it's tied to a hwpt and its 
hwpt->domain. Would it be reasonable to have a different type of
invalidation data for the same type of hwpt?

With this being asked, I added it for our next version. At this
moment, it only does a sanity job:

// API
__iommu_copy_struct_from_user(void *dst_data,
			      const struct iommu_user_data *src_data,
			      unsigned int data_type, size_t data_len,
			      size_t min_len)
{
	if (src_data->type != data_type)
		return -EINVAL;

// Caller
	rc = iommu_copy_struct_from_user(&user_cfg, user_data,
					 IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_SELFTEST, iotlb);
	if (rc)
		return ERR_PTR(rc);

Thanks
Nic