Hi Jean, On 3/5/21 11:45 AM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote: >> This patch adds the VFIO_IOMMU_SET_MSI_BINDING ioctl which aim >> to (un)register the guest MSI binding to the host. This latter >> then can use those stage 1 bindings to build a nested stage >> binding targeting the physical MSIs. > > Now that RMR is in the IORT spec, could it be used for the nested MSI > problem? For virtio-iommu tables I was planning to do it like this: > > MSI is mapped at stage-2 with an arbitrary IPA->doorbell PA. We report > this IPA to userspace through iommu_groups/X/reserved_regions. No change > there. Then to the guest we report a reserved identity mapping at IPA > (using RMR, an equivalent DT binding, or probed RESV_MEM for > virtio-iommu). Is there any DT binding equivalent? The guest creates that mapping at stage-1, and that's it. > Unless I overlooked something we'd only reuse existing infrastructure and > avoid the SET_MSI_BINDING interface. Yes at first glance I think this should work. The guest SMMU driver will continue allocating IOVA for MSIs but I think that's not an issue as they won't be used. For the SMMU case this makes the guest behavior different from the baremetal one though. Typically you will never get any S1 fault. Also the S1 mapping is static and direct. I will prototype this too. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Jean > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
