On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:02:05PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > > The interface definitely can be reused. But IOASID has a different > > behavior in terms of migration and ownership checking. I guess SEV key > > IDs are not tied to a process whereas IOASIDs are. Perhaps this can be > > solved by adding > > + .can_attach = ioasids_can_attach, > > + .cancel_attach = ioasids_cancel_attach, > > Let me give it a try and come back. > > > While I am trying to fit the IOASIDs cgroup in to the misc cgroup proposal. > I'd like to have a direction check on whether this idea of using cgroup for > IOASID/PASID resource management is viable. > > Alex/Jason/Jean and everyone, your feedback is much appreciated. IMHO I can't think of anything else to enforce some limit on a HW scarce resource that unpriv userspace can consume. Jason
