Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:15:24PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > > +static int pci_tsm_disconnect(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pci_tsm *pci_tsm = pdev->tsm;
> > > > +
> > > > + lockdep_assert_held(&pci_tsm_rwsem);
> > > > + if_not_guard(mutex_intr, &pci_tsm->lock)
> > > > + return -EINTR;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pci_tsm->state < PCI_TSM_CONNECT)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + if (pci_tsm->state < PCI_TSM_INIT)
> > > > + return -ENXIO;
> > >
> > > Check PCI_TSM_INIT first, or this condition will never hit.
> > >
> > > if (pci_tsm->state < PCI_TSM_INIT)
> > > return -ENXIO;
> > > if (pci_tsm->state < PCI_TSM_CONNECT)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > I suggest the same sequence for pci_tsm_connect().
> >
> > Good catch, fixed.
> >
> > [..]
> > > > +
> > > > +static void __pci_tsm_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + bool tee_cap;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!is_physical_endpoint(pdev))
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > This Filters out virtual functions, just because not ready for support,
> > > is it?
> >
> > Do you see a need for PCI core to notify the TSM driver about the
> > arrival of VF devices?
>
> I think yes.
>
> >
> > My expectation is that a VF TDI communicates with the TSM driver
> > relative to its PF.
>
> It is possible, but the PF TSM still need to manage the TDI context for
> all it's VFs, like:
>
> struct pci_tdi;
>
> struct pci_tsm {
> ...
> struct pci_dsm *dsm;
> struct xarray tdi_xa; // struct pci_tdi array
> };
>
>
> An alternative is we allow VFs has their own pci_tsm, and store their
> own tdi contexts in it.
>
> struct pci_tsm {
> ...
> struct pci_dsm *dsm; // point to PF's dsm.
> struct pci_tdi *tdi;
> };
>
> I perfer the later cause we don't have to seach for TDI context
> everytime we have a pdev for VF and do tsm operations on it.
I do think it makes sense to have one ->tsm pointer from a PCI device to
represent any possible TSM context, but I do not think it makes sense
for that context to always contain members that are only relevant to PF
Function 0. So, here is an updated proposal:
/**
* struct pci_tsm - Core TSM context for a given PCIe endpoint
* @pdev: indicates the type of pci_tsm object
*
* This structure is wrapped by a low level TSM driver and returned by
* tsm_ops.probe(), it is freed by tsm_ops.remove(). Depending on
* whether @pdev is physical function 0, another physical function, or a
* virtual function determines the pci_tsm object type. E.g. see 'struct
* pci_tsm_pf0'.
*/
struct pci_tsm {
struct pci_dev *pdev;
};
/**
* struct pci_tsm_pf0 - Physical Function 0 TDISP context
* @state: reflect device initialized, connected, or bound
* @lock: protect @state vs pci_tsm_ops invocation
* @doe_mb: PCIe Data Object Exchange mailbox
*/
struct pci_tsm_pf0 {
enum pci_tsm_state state;
struct mutex lock;
struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb;
struct pci_tsm tsm;
};
This arrangement lets the core 'struct pci_tsm' object hold
common-to-all device-type details like a 'struct pci_tdi' pointer. For
physical function0 devices the core does:
container_of(pdev->tsm, struct pci_tsm_pf0, tsm)
...to get to those exclusive details.
> > > > +
> > > > + tee_cap = pdev->devcap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_TEE;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!(pdev->ide_cap || tee_cap))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + lockdep_assert_held_write(&pci_tsm_rwsem);
> > > > + if (!tsm_ops)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + struct pci_tsm *pci_tsm __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*pci_tsm), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!pci_tsm)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If a physical device has any security capabilities it may be
> > > > + * a candidate to connect with the platform TSM
> > > > + */
> > > > + struct pci_dsm *dsm __free(dsm_remove) = tsm_ops->probe(pdev);
> > >
> > > IIUC, pdev->tsm should be for every pci function (physical or virtual),
> > > pdev->tsm->dsm should be only for physical functions, is it?
> >
> > Per above I was only expecting physical function, but the bind flow
> > might introduce the need for per function (phyiscal or virtual) TDI
> > context. I expect that is separate from the PF pdev->tsm context.
>
> Could we embed TDI context in PF's pdev->tsm AND VF's pdev->tsm? From
> TDISP spec, TSM covers TDI management so I think it is proper
> struct pci_tsm contains TDI context.
Yes, makes sense. I will work on moving the physical function0 data
out-of-line from the core 'struct pci_tsm' definition.
So, 'struct pci_tdi' is common to 'struct pci_tsm' since any PCI
function can become a TDI. If VFs or non-function0 functions need
addtional context we could create a 'struct pci_tsm_vf' or similar for
that data.
