> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:16 PM
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:10:48PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 7:47 PM
> > [...]
> > > I'm worried Intel views the only use of PASID in a guest is with
> > > ENQCMD, but that is not consistent with the industry. We need to see
> > > normal nested PASID support with assigned PCI VFs.
> >
> > I'm not quire flow here. Intel also allows PASID usage in guest without
> > ENQCMD. e.g. Passthru a PF to guest, and use PASID on it without
> ENQCMD.
>
> Then you need all the parts, the hypervisor calls from the vIOMMU, and
> you can't really use a vPASID.
This is a diagram shows the vSVA setup.
.-------------. .---------------------------.
| vIOMMU | | Guest process CR3, FL only|
| | '---------------------------'
.----------------/
| PASID Entry |--- PASID cache flush -
'-------------' |
| | V
| | CR3 in GPA
'-------------'
Guest
------| Shadow |--------------------------|--------
v v v
Host
.-------------. .----------------------.
| pIOMMU | | Bind FL for GVA-GPA |
| | '----------------------'
.----------------/ |
| PASID Entry | V (Nested xlate)
'----------------\.------------------------------.
| | |SL for GPA-HPA, default domain|
| | '------------------------------'
'-------------'
Where:
- FL = First level/stage one page tables
- SL = Second level/stage two page tables
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210302203545.436623-1-yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx/
>
> I'm not sure how Intel intends to resolve all of this.
>
> > > > - this per-ioasid SVA operations is not aligned with the native SVA
> usage
> > > > model. Native SVA bind is per-device.
> > >
> > > Seems like that is an error in native SVA.
> > >
> > > SVA is a particular mode of the PASID's memory mapping table, it has
> > > nothing to do with a device.
> >
> > I think it still has relationship with device. This is determined by the
> > DMA remapping hierarchy in hardware. e.g. Intel VT-d, the DMA isolation
> is
> > enforced first in device granularity and then PASID granularity. SVA makes
> > usage of both PASID and device granularity isolation.
>
> When the device driver authorizes a PASID the VT-d stuff should setup
> the isolation parameters for the give pci_device and PASID.
yes, both device and PASID is needed to setup VT-d stuff.
> Do not leak implementation details like this as uAPI. Authorization
> and memory map are distinct ideas with distinct interfaces. Do not mix
> them.
got you. Let's focus on the uAPI things here and leave implementation details
in RFC patches.
Thanks,
Yi Liu
> Jason
