On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:11:01AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 2022-06-17 03:53, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 6:41 AM
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > > > - if (resv_msi) {
> > > > > + if (resv_msi && !domain->msi_cookie) {
> > > > > ret = iommu_get_msi_cookie(domain->domain,
> > > > > resv_msi_base);
> > > > > if (ret && ret != -ENODEV)
> > > > > goto out_detach;
> > > > > + domain->msi_cookie = true;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > why not moving to alloc_attach_domain() then no need for the new
> > > > domain field? It's required only when a new domain is allocated.
> > >
> > > When reusing an existing domain that doesn't have an msi_cookie,
> > > we can do iommu_get_msi_cookie() if resv_msi is found. So it is
> > > not limited to a new domain.
> >
> > Looks msi_cookie requirement is per platform (currently only
> > for smmu. see arm_smmu_get_resv_regions()). If there is
> > no mixed case then above check is not required.
> >
> > But let's hear whether Robin has a different thought here.
>
> Yes, the cookie should logically be tied to the lifetime of the domain
> itself. In the relevant context, "an existing domain that doesn't have
> an msi_cookie" should never exist.
Thanks for the explanation. I will move the iommu_get_msi_cookie()
into alloc_attach_domain(), as Kevin suggested.
