Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Message-ID: <cfc8cc32-8c62-440d-946f-69cd855fedaf@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:19:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Longfang Liu <liulongfang@huawei.com>,
        Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/12] iommu: Use refcount for fault data access
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20231207064308.313316-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20231207064308.313316-13-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20231211152456.GB1489931@ziepe.ca>
 <0f23e37a-5ace-492c-82e9-cf3d13f4ef6f@linux.intel.com>
 <20231212151809.GD3013885@ziepe.ca>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231212151809.GD3013885@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/12/23 11:18 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 01:07:17PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> 
>> Yes, agreed. The iopf_fault_param should be passed in together with the
>> iopf_group. The reference count should be released in the
>> iopf_free_group(). These two helps could look like below:
>>
>> int iommu_page_response(struct iopf_group *group,
>> 			struct iommu_page_response *msg)
>> {
>> 	bool needs_pasid;
>> 	int ret = -EINVAL;
>> 	struct iopf_fault *evt;
>> 	struct iommu_fault_page_request *prm;
>> 	struct device *dev = group->fault_param->dev;
>> 	const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(dev);
>> 	bool has_pasid = msg->flags & IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID;
>> 	struct iommu_fault_param *fault_param = group->fault_param;
>>
>> 	if (!ops->page_response)
>> 		return -ENODEV;
> 
> We should never get here if this is the case, prevent the device from
> being added in the first place

Yeah, could move it to iopf_queue_add_device(). WARN and return failure
there if the driver is not ready for page request handling.

> 
>> 	/* Only send response if there is a fault report pending */
>> 	mutex_lock(&fault_param->lock);
>> 	if (list_empty(&fault_param->faults)) {
>> 		dev_warn_ratelimited(dev, "no pending PRQ, drop response\n");
>> 		goto done_unlock;
>> 	}
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Check if we have a matching page request pending to respond,
>> 	 * otherwise return -EINVAL
>> 	 */
>> 	list_for_each_entry(evt, &fault_param->faults, list) {
>> 		prm = &evt->fault.prm;
>> 		if (prm->grpid != msg->grpid)
>> 			continue;
>>
>> 		/*
>> 		 * If the PASID is required, the corresponding request is
>> 		 * matched using the group ID, the PASID valid bit and the PASID
>> 		 * value. Otherwise only the group ID matches request and
>> 		 * response.
>> 		 */
>> 		needs_pasid = prm->flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_RESPONSE_NEEDS_PASID;
>> 		if (needs_pasid && (!has_pasid || msg->pasid != prm->pasid))
>> 			continue;
>>
>> 		if (!needs_pasid && has_pasid) {
>> 			/* No big deal, just clear it. */
>> 			msg->flags &= ~IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID;
>> 			msg->pasid = 0;
>> 		}
>>
>> 		ret = ops->page_response(dev, evt, msg);
>> 		list_del(&evt->list);
>> 		kfree(evt);
>> 		break;
>> 	}
>>
>> done_unlock:
>> 	mutex_unlock(&fault_param->lock);
> 
> I would have expected the group to free'd here? But regardless this
> looks like a good direction

Both work for me. We can decide it according to the needs of code later.

> 
> Jason

Best regards,
baolu