Hi Alex, > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:02 PM > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:25:06 +0000 > "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 10:44 PM > > > > > @@ -791,7 +813,21 @@ static int vfio_pci_fill_devs(struct pci_dev *pdev, void > *data) > > > if (!iommu_group) > > > return -EPERM; /* Cannot reset non-isolated devices */ > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > Is disabling iommu a sane way to test vfio noiommu mode? > > Yes > > > I added intel_iommu=off to disable intel iommu and bind a device to vfio-pci. > > I can see the /dev/vfio/noiommu-0 and /dev/vfio/devices/noiommu-vfio0. Bind > > iommufd==-1 can succeed, but failed to get hot reset info due to the above > > group check. Reason is that this happens to have some affected devices, and > > these devices have no valid iommu_group (because they are not bound to vfio-pci > > hence nobody allocates noiommu group for them). So when hot reset info loops > > such devices, it failed with -EPERM. Is this expected? > > Hmm, I didn't recall that we put in such a limitation, but given the > minimally intrusive approach to no-iommu and the fact that we never > defined an invalid group ID to return to the user, it makes sense that > we just blocked the ioctl for no-iommu use. I guess we can do the same > for no-iommu cdev. I just realize a further issue related to this limitation. Remember that we may finally compile out the vfio group infrastructure in the future. Say I want to test noiommu, I may boot such a kernel with iommu disabled. I think the _INFO ioctl would fail as there is no iommu_group. Does it mean we will not support hot reset for noiommu in future if vfio group infrastructure is compiled out? As another thread, we are going to add a new bdf/group capability to DEVICE_GET_INFO. If the above kernel is booted, shall we exclude the new bdf/group capability or add a flag in the capability to mark the group_id is invalid? Regards, Yi Liu
