On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:02:46AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote: > > And a flag IOMMU_SVA_BIND_SUPERVISOR (not that I plan to implement it in > > the SMMU, but I think we need to clean the current usage) > > > You mean move #define SVM_FLAG_SUPERVISOR_MODE out of Intel code to be a > generic flag in iommu-sva-lib.h called IOMMU_SVA_BIND_SUPERVISOR? Yes, though it would need to be in iommu.h since it's used by device drivers > > Also wondering about device driver allocating auxiliary domains for their > > private use, to do iommu_map/unmap on private PASIDs (a clean replacement > > to super SVA, for example). Would that go through the same path as > > /dev/ioasid and use the cgroup of current task? > > > For the in-kernel private use, I don't think we should restrict based on > cgroup, since there is no affinity to user processes. I also think the > PASID allocation should just use kernel API instead of /dev/ioasid. Why > would user space need to know the actual PASID # for device private domains? > Maybe I missed your idea? No that's my bad, I didn't get the role of /dev/ioasid. Let me give the series a proper read. Thanks, Jean
