On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:49:26AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> + * @IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_IOPF_CAPABLE: User is capable of handling IO page faults.
This does not seem like the best name?
Probably like this given my remark in the cover letter:
--- a/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h
@@ -359,6 +359,7 @@ struct iommu_vfio_ioas {
enum iommufd_hwpt_alloc_flags {
IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT = 1 << 0,
IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING = 1 << 1,
+ IOMMU_HWPT_IOPFD_FD_VALID = 1 << 2,
};
/**
@@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ struct iommu_hwpt_alloc {
__u32 data_type;
__u32 data_len;
__aligned_u64 data_uptr;
+ __s32 iopf_fd;
};
#define IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC _IO(IOMMUFD_TYPE, IOMMUFD_CMD_HWPT_ALLOC)
> @@ -679,6 +688,62 @@ struct iommu_dev_data_arm_smmuv3 {
> __u32 sid;
> };
>
> +/**
> + * struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault - iommu page fault data
> + * @size: sizeof(struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault)
> + * @flags: Combination of IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_ flags.
> + * - PASID_VALID: @pasid field is valid
> + * - LAST_PAGE: the last page fault in a group
> + * - PRIV_DATA: @private_data field is valid
> + * - RESP_NEEDS_PASID: the page response must have the same
> + * PASID value as the page request.
> + * @dev_id: id of the originated device
> + * @pasid: Process Address Space ID
> + * @grpid: Page Request Group Index
> + * @perm: requested page permissions (IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_* values)
> + * @addr: page address
> + * @private_data: device-specific private information
> + */
> +struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault {
> + __u32 size;
> + __u32 flags;
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_PASID_VALID (1 << 0)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_LAST_PAGE (1 << 1)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_PRIV_DATA (1 << 2)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_RESP_NEEDS_PASID (1 << 3)
> + __u32 dev_id;
> + __u32 pasid;
> + __u32 grpid;
> + __u32 perm;
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_READ (1 << 0)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_WRITE (1 << 1)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_EXEC (1 << 2)
> +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_PRIV (1 << 3)
> + __u64 addr;
> + __u64 private_data[2];
> +};
This mixed #define is not the style, these should be in enums,
possibly with kdocs
Use __aligned_u64 also
> +
> +/**
> + * struct iommu_hwpt_response - IOMMU page fault response
> + * @size: sizeof(struct iommu_hwpt_response)
> + * @flags: Must be set to 0
> + * @hwpt_id: hwpt ID of target hardware page table for the response
> + * @dev_id: device ID of target device for the response
> + * @pasid: Process Address Space ID
> + * @grpid: Page Request Group Index
> + * @code: response code. The supported codes include:
> + * 0: Successful; 1: Response Failure; 2: Invalid Request.
> + */
> +struct iommu_hwpt_page_response {
> + __u32 size;
> + __u32 flags;
> + __u32 hwpt_id;
> + __u32 dev_id;
> + __u32 pasid;
> + __u32 grpid;
> + __u32 code;
> +};
Is it OK to have the user pass in all this detailed information? Is it
a security problem if the user lies? Ie shouldn't we only ack page
faults we actually have outstanding?
IOW should iommu_hwpt_pgfault just have a 'response_cookie' generated
by the kernel that should be placed here? The kernel would keep track
of all this internal stuff?
Jason
