On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:07:38AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:27:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 07:52:10AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 10:03:09AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > In iommufd_hwpt_paging_alloc(), we reject IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID:
> > > const u32 valid_flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT |
> > > IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
> > > ...
> > > if (flags & ~valid_flags)
> > > return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
> > >
> > > In iommufd_hwpt_nested_alloc(), we mask the flag away:
> > > if ((flags & ~IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID) ||
> > > !user_data->len || !ops->domain_alloc_user)
> > > return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
> > > ...
> > > hwpt->domain = ops->domain_alloc_user(idev->dev,
> > > flags & ~IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID,
> > > parent->common.domain, user_data);
> > >
> > > Then, in the common function it has a section of
> > > if (cmd->flags & IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID) {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > It seems that this IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID is for nested domains?
> >
> > OK, but ARM should be blocking it since it doesn't work there.
> >
> > I think we made some error here, it should have been passed in flags
> > to the drivers and only intel should have accepted it.
>
> Trying to limit changes here since two parts are already quite
> large, I think a separate series fixing that would be nicer?
Yes, let's just make a note
> > This suggests we should send flags down the viommu alloc domain path too.
>
> Ack. Will pass it in.
But this would be nice to get to
Jason
