Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
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, 18 Oct 2023 09:51:09 -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: <ZTAM/V2VyiOQhmWi@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <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>
 <ZS1+VMEo+0bCecui@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <20231018163720.GA3952@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231018163720.GA3952@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2023 16:51:30.1668
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9ea96c50-2bb9-45ad-e208-08dbcffa7a45
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: MWH0EPF000971E9.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY8PR12MB7538
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
        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
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (snail.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 01:37:20PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:17:56AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Yeah, maybe? Go down the road 10 years and we might have SMMUv3
> invalidation format v1 and v2 or something?
> 
> Like we don't know what the HW side will do, they might extend the
> command queue to have bigger commands and negotiate with the driver if
> the bigger/smaller format is used. We've done that in our HW a couple
> of times now.

I see. We'll have the type. Thanks!