On 1/7/25 12:36, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 10:46:21AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 11:01:32AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
Nit: I think it would be more readable to add a check in the vevent
reporting helper.
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/driver.c b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/driver.c
index 77c34f8791ef..ccada0ada5ff 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommufd/driver.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommufd/driver.c
@@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ int iommufd_viommu_report_event(struct iommufd_viommu
*viommu,
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!data_len || !event_data))
return -EINVAL;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(type != IOMMU_VEVENTQ_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
Hmm, that's a good point I think.
down_read(&viommu->veventqs_rwsem);
veventq = iommufd_viommu_find_veventq(viommu, type);
^
|
We actually have been missing a type validation entirely, so the
type could have been rejected by this function. Perhaps we should
add a static list of supported types to struct iommufd_viommu_ops
for drivers to report so that then the core could reject from the
first place during a vEVENTQ allocation.
I added something like this. Will send a v5.
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
index 0c7a5894ba07..348179f3cf2a 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
@@ -399,9 +399,15 @@ static int arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
return ret;
}
+static bool arm_vsmmu_supports_veventq(unsigned int type)
+{
+ return type == IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3;
Do you need to check the hardware capabilities before reporting this? I
am not familiar with the ARM architecture, but typically it's better to
make it like this,
static bool arm_vsmmu_supports_veventq(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
enum iommu_veventq_type type)
{
if (type != IOMMU_VEVENTQ_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3)
return false;
if (hardware_not_capable(viommu))
return false;
return true;
}
+}
+
static const struct iommufd_viommu_ops arm_vsmmu_ops = {
.alloc_domain_nested = arm_vsmmu_alloc_domain_nested,
.cache_invalidate = arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate,
+ .supports_veventq = arm_vsmmu_supports_veventq,
};
Others look good to me.
Thanks,
baolu
