On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:10:08PM +0100, Joel Granados wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c
> > index 645ab5d290fe..0a8e03d5e7c5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/device.c
> > @@ -456,6 +456,16 @@ int iommufd_hw_pagetable_attach(struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt,
> > if (rc)
> > goto err_unlock;
> >
> > + if (hwpt->fault) {
> > + void *curr;
> > +
> > + curr = iopf_pasid_cookie_set(idev->dev, IOMMU_NO_PASID, idev);
> I'm hitting an error here when I try to attach to a hwpt that I created
> previously with the `IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_IOPF_CAPABLE` flag.
>
> I get an -ENODEV from iopf_pasid_cookie_set which is triggered by
> dev->iommu->fault_param being 0x0.
>
> I looked around and I see that the fault param gets set in
> iopf_queue_add_device which is called from iommu_dev_enable_feature
> only. Furthermore iommu_dev_enable_feature is only called in idxd and
> uacce drivers.
>
> Questions:
> 1. Should iopf_queue_add_device get called from the
> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_IOPF_CAPABLE ioctl call? This make sense to me as
> this is where the device and the IOPF are related from user space.
It probably needs to call the set feature thing in the short term.
In the medium term I would like the drivers to manage the iopf based
on domain attachment not explicit feature asks
> 2. This is not intended to work only with idxd and uacce. right?
It should work everywhere, I suspect Intel Team didn't hit this
because they are testing IDXD SIOV? Can you guys also test it as a PF
assignment?
Jason
