On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 11:13:46AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 08:41:47AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:32:28PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > For my SEV-TIO exercise ("trusted IO"), I am looking for a kernel interface
> > > to pass the guest's BDFs for a specific host device (which is passed
> > > through) and nothing in the kernel has any knowledge of it atm, is this the
> > > right place, or another ioctl() is needed here?
> >
> > We probably need to add the vRID as well to this struct for that
> > reason.
>
> "vRID"/"vBDF" doesn't sound very generic to me to put in this
> structure, though PCI devices are and very likely will be the
> only users of this Virtual Device for a while. Any good idea?
It isn't necessarily bad to have a pci field as long as we can
somehow understand when it is used.
> Also, I am wondering if the uAPI structure of Virtual Device
> should have a driver-specific data structure. And the vdev_id
> should be in the driver-specific struct. So, it could stay in
> corresponding naming, "Stream ID", "Device ID" or "Context ID"
> v.s. a generic "Virtual ID" in the top-level structure? Then,
> other info like CCA can be put in the driver-level structure
> of SMMU's.
I'd to avoid a iommu-driver specific structure here, but I fear we
will have a "lowervisor" (sigh) specific structure for the widely
varied CC/pkvm/etc world.
> Agreed. That also implies that a vRID is quite independent to
> the IOMMU right? So, I think that the reason of adding a vRID
> to the virtual deivce uAPI/structure should be IOMMU requiring
> it?
I would like to use this API to link in the CC/pkvm/etc world, and use
it to create not just the vIOMMU components but link up to the
"lowervisor" components as well, since it is all the same stuff
basically.
Jason
