On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:28:15AM +0800, Yi Liu wrote: > On 2023/10/14 01:56, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:04:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:33:13PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote: > > > > > > > not really. Below the users of the struct iommu_user_data in my current > > > > iommufd_nesting branch. Only the domain_alloc_user op has type as there > > > > can be multiple vendor specific alloc data types. Basically, I'm ok to > > > > make the change you suggested, just not sure if it is good to add type > > > > as it is only needed by one path. > > > > > > I don't think we should ever have an opaque data blob without a type > > > tag.. > > > > I can add those "missing" data types, and then a driver will be > > responsible for sanitizing the type along with the data_len. > > > > I notice that the enum iommu_hwpt_data_type in the posted patch > > is confined to the alloc_user uAPI. Perhaps we should share it > > with invalidate too: > > invalidation path does not need a type field today as the data > type is vendor specific, vendor driver should know the data type > when calls in. I'm not keen on that, what if a driver needs another type in the future? You'd want to make the invalidation data format part of the domain allocation? Jason
