Hi Greg, Christoph, On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:31 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:27:35PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote: > > Need clarification. The flag "untrusted" is currently a part of > > pci_dev struct, and is populated within the PCI subsystem. > > Yes, and that is the problem. > > > > > 1) Is your suggestion to move this flag as well as the attribute to > > device core (in "struct device")? This would allow other buses to > > populate/use this flag if they want. By default it'll be set to 0 for > > all devices (PCI subsystem will populate it based on platform info, > > like it does today). > > > > OR > > > > 2) Are you suggesting to keep the "untrusted" flag within PCI, but > > attach the sysfs attribute to the base device? (&pci_dev->dev)? > > (1). As for IOMMUs and userspace policy it really should not matter > what bus a device is on if it is external and not trustworthy. Sure. I can move the flag to the "struct device" (and likely call it "external" instead of "untrusted" so as to make it suitable for more use cases later). The buses can fill this up if they know which devices are external and which ones are not (otherwise it will be 0 by default). The PCI can fill this up like it does today, from platform info (ACPI / Device tree). Greg, how does this sound? Thanks, Rajat
