Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103960-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <7a6ac83b-3165-4abe-91be-a58f69656f8a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:16:43 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, 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
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20240122073903.24406-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240122073903.24406-6-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240308190539.GY9225@ziepe.ca>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240308190539.GY9225@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/9/24 3:05 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:39:00PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> 
>> @@ -411,6 +414,8 @@ enum iommu_hwpt_data_type {
>>    * @__reserved: Must be 0
>>    * @data_type: One of enum iommu_hwpt_data_type
>>    * @data_len: Length of the type specific data
>> + * @fault_id: The ID of IOMMUFD_FAULT object. Valid only if flags field of
>> + *            IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID is set.
>>    * @data_uptr: User pointer to the type specific data
>>    *
>>    * Explicitly allocate a hardware page table object. This is the same object
>> @@ -441,6 +446,7 @@ struct iommu_hwpt_alloc {
>>   	__u32 __reserved;
>>   	__u32 data_type;
>>   	__u32 data_len;
>> +	__u32 fault_id;
>>   	__aligned_u64 data_uptr;
>>   };
> 
> ?? We can't add fault_id in the middle of the struct??

Yes. I should add the new field at the end.

By the way, with a __u32 added, this data structure is not 64-byte-
aligned anymore. Do we need to add another unused u32 entry, or just let
the compiler handle it?

> 
>> +	if (cmd->flags & IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID) {
>> +		struct iommufd_fault *fault;
>> +
>> +		fault = iommufd_get_fault(ucmd, cmd->fault_id);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(fault)) {
>> +			rc = PTR_ERR(fault);
>> +			goto out_hwpt;
>> +		}
>> +		hwpt->fault = fault;
>> +		hwpt->domain->iopf_handler = iommufd_fault_iopf_handler;
>> +		hwpt->domain->fault_data = hwpt;
>> +		hwpt->fault_capable = true;
> 
> I wonder if there should be an iommu API to make a domain fault
> capable?

The iommu core identifies a fault-capable domain by checking its
domain->iopf_handler. Anyway, what's the difference between a fault or
non-fault capable domain from iommu core's point of view?

Best regards,
baolu