Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-97378-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:19:44 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.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>,
	Joel Granados <j.granados@samsung.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] iommufd: Associate fault object with
 iommufd_hw_pgtable
Message-ID: <20240308171944.GU9225@ziepe.ca>
References: <20240122073903.24406-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240122073903.24406-6-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <CABQgh9FwOVsFe3+5VG0_rDruJVW0ueHTcsnxUcVAvFqrF4Vz6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABQgh9G5yFZ_p+tfvnJqOQo+Be62rMDatsEX1rhD_oTiXDaw5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306160120.GN9225@ziepe.ca>
 <74d6f11a-9415-48e5-a165-7b9f5b87873d@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <74d6f11a-9415-48e5-a165-7b9f5b87873d@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 09:54:53AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2024/3/7 0:01, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:15:50PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
> > > Double checked, this does not send flags, 0 is OK,
> > > Only domain_alloc_user in iommufd_hwpt_paging_alloc requires flags.
> > > 
> > > In my debug, I need this patch, otherwise NULL pointer errors happen
> > > since SVA is not set.
> > This is some driver bug, we need to get rid of these
> > iommu_dev_enable_feature() requirements.
> 
> Yes. Especially iopf should be independent of SVA.
> 
> The problem in the arm smmu v3 driver is that enabling iopf is actually
> done in the enabling SVA path, while the enabling iopf path does nothing
> except for some checks. It doesn't matter if iopf is tied with SVA, but
> when it comes to delivering iopf to user space, we need to decouple it.

Yes. Each driver is going to need to get a to a NOP for the feature
things then we can remove them.

I did half the ARM driver in my part 2, the iopf bit still needs
doing there.

Jason