On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:42:58AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:40 PM
> >
> > > > Ie the basic flow would see the driver core doing some:
> > >
> > > Just double confirm. Is there concern on having the driver core to
> > > call iommu functions?
> >
> > It is always an interesting question, but I'd say iommu is
> > foundantional to Linux and if it needs driver core help it shouldn't
> > be any different from PM, pinctl, or other subsystems that have
> > inserted themselves into the driver core.
> >
> > Something kind of like the below.
> >
> > If I recall, once it is done like this then the entire iommu notifier
> > infrastructure can be ripped out which is a lot of code.
>
> Currently vfio is the only user of this notifier mechanism. Now
> three events are handled in vfio_iommu_group_notifier():
>
> NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE: this is basically for some sanity check. suppose
> not required once we handle it cleanly in the iommu/driver core.
>
> NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER: the BUG_ON() logic to be fixed by this change.
>
> NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER: still needs some thoughts. Based on
> the comments the group->unbound_list is used to avoid breaking
I have a patch series to delete the unbound_list, the scenario you
describe is handled by the device_lock()
> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> index 68ea1f9..826a651 100644
> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -566,6 +566,10 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> goto done;
> }
>
> + ret = iommu_device_set_dma_hint(dev, drv->dma_hint);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
I think for such a narrow usage you should not change the struct
device_driver. Just have pci_stub call a function to flip back to user
mode.
> +static int iommu_dev_viable(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> + enum dma_hint hint = *data;
> + struct device_driver *drv = READ_ONCE(dev->driver);
Especially since this isn't locked properly or safe.
Jason
