On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 07:59:11PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > I just realized that either my v8 or your version calls unmap() > first at the entire cur_ioas. So, there seems to be no point in > doing that fallback re-add routine since the cur_ioas isn't the > same, which I don't feel quite right... The point is to restore the access back to how it should be on failure so future use of the accesss still does the right thing. We already have built into this a certain non-atomicity for mdevs, they can see a pin failure during replace if they race an access during this unmap window. This is similar to the real HW iommu's without atomic replace. > Perhaps we should pass the ID into iopt_add/remove_access like > you said above. And then we attach the new_ioas, piror to the > detach the cur_ioas? If it is simple this seems like the most robust Jason
