On 11/4/24 21:20, Yi Liu wrote:
@@ -4291,15 +4296,18 @@ void domain_remove_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
kfree(dev_pasid);
}
-static void intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid,
- struct iommu_domain *domain)
+static int blocking_domain_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
+ struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid,
+ struct iommu_domain *old)
{
struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, pasid, false);
intel_drain_pasid_prq(dev, pasid);
- domain_remove_dev_pasid(domain, dev, pasid);
+ domain_remove_dev_pasid(old, dev, pasid);
+
+ return 0;
}
struct dev_pasid_info *
@@ -4664,7 +4672,6 @@ const struct iommu_ops intel_iommu_ops = {
.dev_disable_feat = intel_iommu_dev_disable_feat,
.is_attach_deferred = intel_iommu_is_attach_deferred,
.def_domain_type = device_def_domain_type,
- .remove_dev_pasid = intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid,
This will cause iommu_attach_device_pasid() to fail due to the check and
failure condition introduced in patch 1/7.
--
baolu
