On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 07:17:38PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 01/07/2022 5:43 pm, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > index 2ed3594f384e..072cac5ab5a4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > @@ -1135,10 +1135,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev)
> > > > struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > - if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &arm_smmu_ops) {
> > > > - dev_err(dev, "cannot attach to SMMU, is it on the same bus?\n");
> > > > - return -ENXIO;
> > > > - }
> > > > + if (!fwspec || fwspec->ops != &arm_smmu_ops)
> > > > + return -EMEDIUMTYPE;
> > >
> > > This is the wrong check, you want the "if (smmu_domain->smmu != smmu)"
> > > condition further down. If this one fails it's effectively because the
> > > device doesn't have an IOMMU at all, and similar to patch #3 it will be
> >
> > Thanks for the review! I will fix that. The "on the same bus" is
> > quite eye-catching.
> >
> > > removed once the core code takes over properly (I even have both those
> > > patches written now!)
> >
> > Actually in my v1 the proposal for ops check returned -EMEDIUMTYPE
> > also upon an ops mismatch, treating that too as an incompatibility.
> > Do you mean that we should have fine-grained it further?
>
> On second look, I think this particular check was already entirely
> redundant by the time I made the fwspec conversion to it, oh well. Since
> it remains harmless for the time being, let's just ignore it entirely
> until we can confidently say goodbye to the whole lot[1].
That looks cleaner!
> I don't think there's any need to differentiate an instance mismatch
> from a driver mismatch, once the latter becomes realistically possible,
> mostly due to iommu_domain_alloc() also having to become device-aware to
> know which driver to allocate from. Thus as far as a user is concerned,
> if attaching a device to an existing domain fails with -EMEDIUMTYPE,
> allocating a new domain using the given device, and attaching to that,
> can be expected to succeed, regardless of why the original attempt was
> rejected. In fact even in the theoretical different-driver-per-bus model
> the same principle still holds up.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
