On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:38:23AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 01:03:53PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:59:43AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > Introduce a pair of new ioctls to set/unset a per-viommu virtual device id > > > that should be linked to a physical device id via an idev pointer. > > > > Given some of the other discussions around CC I suspect we should > > rename these to 'create/destroy virtual device' with an eye that > > eventually they would be extended like other ops with per-CC platform > > data. > > > > ie this would be the interface to tell the CC trusted world that a > > secure device is being added to a VM with some additional flags.. > > > > Right now it only conveys the vRID parameter of the virtual device > > being created. > > > > A following question is if these objects should have their own IDs in > > the iommufd space too, and then unset is not unset but just a normal > > destroy object. If so then the thing you put in the ids xarray would > > also just be a normal object struct. I found that adding it as a new object makes things a lot of easier since a vdevice can take refcounts of both viommu and idev. So both destroy() callbacks wouldn't be bothered. While confirming if I am missing something from the review comments, I am not quite sure what is "the thing you put in the ids xarray".. I only added a vRID xarray per viommu, yet that doesn't seem to be able to merge into the normal object struct. Mind elaborating? Thanks Nicolin > > This is probably worth doing if this is going to grow more CC stuff > > later. > > Having to admit that I have been struggling to find a better name > than set_vdev_id, I also thought about something similar to that > "create/destroy virtual device', yet was not that confident since > we only have virtual device ID in its data structure. Also, the > virtual device sounds a bit confusing, given we already have idev. > > That being said, if we have a clear picture that in the long term > we would extend it to hold more information, I think it could be > a smart move. > > Perhaps virtual device can have its own "attach" to vIOMMU? Or > would you still prefer attaching via proxy hwpt_nested? > > Thanks > Nicolin
