On 2023/10/17 18:51, Joao Martins wrote:
On 16/10/2023 14:01, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2023/10/16 20:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:58:42PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 2023/10/16 19:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:57:34AM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
True. But to be honest, I thought we weren't quite there yet in PASID support
from IOMMUFD perspective; hence why I didn't aim at it. Or do I have the wrong
impression? From the code below, it clearly looks the driver does.
I think we should plan that this series will go before the PASID
series
I know that PASID support in IOMMUFD is not yet available, but the VT-d
driver already supports attaching a domain to a PASID, as required by
the idxd driver for kernel DMA with PASID. Therefore, from the driver's
perspective, dirty tracking should also be enabled for PASIDs.
As long as the driver refuses to attach a dirty track enabled domain
to PASID it would be fine for now.
Yes. This works.
Baolu Lu, I am blocking PASID attachment this way; let me know if this matches
how would you have the driver refuse dirty tracking on PASID.
Joao, how about blocking pasid attachment in intel_iommu_set_dev_pasid()
directly?
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
index c86ba5a3e75c..392b6ca9ce90 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
@@ -4783,6 +4783,9 @@ static int intel_iommu_set_dev_pasid(struct
iommu_domain *domain,
if (context_copied(iommu, info->bus, info->devfn))
return -EBUSY;
+ if (domain->dirty_ops)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
ret = prepare_domain_attach_device(domain, dev);
if (ret)
return ret;
Best regards,
baolu
