Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-183322-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <79bacf16-dfa6-42c7-b02d-117985e38472@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 09:24:09 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, "iommu@lists.linux.dev"
 <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
 "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org"
 <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommufd: Add iommufd fault object
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
 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>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
 Joel Granados <j.granados@samsung.com>
References: <20240430145710.68112-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240430145710.68112-6-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52769AC595B6BDA8FB4639258CEC2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB52769AC595B6BDA8FB4639258CEC2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/15/24 4:37 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> +static ssize_t iommufd_fault_fops_write(struct file *filep, const char __user
>> *buf,
>> +					size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>> +{
>> +	size_t response_size = sizeof(struct iommu_hwpt_page_response);
>> +	struct iommufd_fault *fault = filep->private_data;
>> +	struct iommu_hwpt_page_response response;
>> +	struct iommufd_device *idev = NULL;
>> +	struct iopf_group *group;
>> +	size_t done = 0;
>> +	int rc;
>> +
>> +	if (*ppos || count % response_size)
>> +		return -ESPIPE;
>> +
>> +	mutex_lock(&fault->mutex);
>> +	while (count > done) {
>> +		rc = copy_from_user(&response, buf + done, response_size);
>> +		if (rc)
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		if (!idev || idev->obj.id != response.dev_id)
>> +			idev = container_of(iommufd_get_object(fault->ictx,
>> +							       response.dev_id,
>> +
>> IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE),
>> +					    struct iommufd_device, obj);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(idev))
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		group = xa_erase(&idev->faults, response.cookie);
>> +		if (!group)
>> +			break;
> is 'continue' better?

If we can't find a matched iopf group here, it means userspace provided
something wrong. The current logic is that we stop here and tell
userspace that only part of the faults have been responded to and it
should retry the remaining responses with the right message.

Best regards,
baolu