On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:22:19PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 11/16/21 9:46 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:57:30AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > Hi Christoph,
> > >
> > > On 11/15/21 9:14 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:05:42AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > > > +enum iommu_dma_owner {
> > > > > + DMA_OWNER_NONE,
> > > > > + DMA_OWNER_KERNEL,
> > > > > + DMA_OWNER_USER,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > > + enum iommu_dma_owner dma_owner;
> > > > > + refcount_t owner_cnt;
> > > > > + struct file *owner_user_file;
> > > >
> > > > I'd just overload the ownership into owner_user_file,
> > > >
> > > > NULL -> no owner
> > > > (struct file *)1UL) -> kernel
> > > > real pointer -> user
> > > >
> > > > Which could simplify a lot of the code dealing with the owner.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah! Sounds reasonable. I will make this in the next version.
> >
> > It would be good to figure out how to make iommu_attach_device()
> > enforce no other driver binding as a kernel user without a file *, as
> > Robin pointed to, before optimizing this.
> >
> > This fixes an existing bug where iommu_attach_device() only checks the
> > group size and is vunerable to a hot plug increasing the group size
> > after it returns. That check should be replaced by this series's logic
> > instead.
>
> As my my understanding, the essence of this problem is that only the
> user owner of the iommu_group could attach an UNMANAGED domain to it.
> If I understand it right, how about introducing a new interface to
> allocate a user managed domain and storing the user file pointer in it.
For iommu_attach_device() the semantic is simple non-sharing, so there
is no need for the file * at all, it can just be NULL.
> Does above help here?
No, iommu_attach_device() is kernel only and should not interact with
userspace.
I'm also going to see if I can learn what Tegra is doing with
iommu_attach_group()
Jason
