On 2022-09-07 18:00, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 03:23:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2022-09-07 14:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Provide a dedicated errno from the IOMMU driver during attach that the
reason attached failed is because of domain incompatability. EMEDIUMTYPE
is chosen because it is never used within the iommu subsystem today and
evokes a sense that the 'medium' aka the domain is incompatible.
I am not a fan of re-using EMEDIUMTYPE or any other special value. What
is needed here in EINVAL, but with a way to tell the caller which of the
function parameters is actually invalid.
Using errnos to indicate the nature of failure is a well established
unix practice, it is why we have hundreds of error codes and don't
just return -EINVAL for everything.
What don't you like about it?
Would you be happier if we wrote it like
#define IOMMU_EINCOMPATIBLE_DEVICE xx
Which tells "which of the function parameters is actually invalid" ?
FWIW, we're now very close to being able to validate dev->iommu against
where the domain came from in core code, and so short-circuit ->attach_dev
entirely if they don't match.
I don't think this is a long term direction. We have systems now with
a number of SMMU blocks and we really are going to see a need that
they share the iommu_domains so we don't have unncessary overheads
from duplicated io page table memory.
So ultimately I'd expect to pass the iommu_domain to the driver and
the driver will decide if the page table memory it represents is
compatible or not. Restricting to only the same iommu instance isn't
good..
Who said IOMMU instance? As a reminder, the patch I currently have[1] is
matching the driver (via the device ops), which happens to be entirely
compatible with drivers supporting cross-instance domains. Mostly
because we already have drivers that support cross-instance domains and
callers that use them.
At that point -EINVAL at the driver callback level could be assumed
to refer to the domain argument, while anything else could be taken
as something going unexpectedly wrong when the attach may otherwise
have worked. I've forgotten if we actually had a valid case anywhere
for "this is my device but even if you retry with a different domain
it's still never going to work", but I think we wouldn't actually
need that anyway - it should be clear enough to a caller that if
attaching to an existing domain fails, then allocating a fresh
domain and attaching also fails, that's the point to give up.
The point was to have clear error handling, we either have permenent
errors or 'this domain will never work with this device error'.
If we treat all error as temporary and just retry randomly it can
create a mess. For instance we might fail to attach to a perfectly
compatible domain due to ENOMEM or something and then go on to
successfully a create a new 2nd domain, just due to races.
We can certainly code the try everything then allocate scheme, it is
just much more fragile than having definitive error codes.
Again, not what I was suggesting. In fact the nature of
iommu_attach_group() already rules out bogus devices getting this far,
so all a driver currently has to worry about is compatibility of a
device that it definitely probed with a domain that it definitely
allocated. Therefore, from a caller's point of view, if attaching to an
existing domain returns -EINVAL, try another domain; multiple different
existing domains can be tried, and may also return -EINVAL for the same
or different reasons; the final attempt is to allocate a fresh domain
and attach to that, which should always be nominally valid and *never*
return -EINVAL. If any attempt returns any other error, bail out down
the usual "this should have worked but something went wrong" path. Even
if any driver did have a nonsensical "nothing went wrong, I just can't
attach my device to any of my domains" case, I don't think it would
really need distinguishing from any other general error anyway.
Once multiple drivers are in play, the only addition is that the
"gatekeeper" check inside iommu_attach_group() may also return -EINVAL
if the device is managed by a different driver, since that still fits
the same "try again with a different domain" message to the caller.
It's actually quite neat - basically the exact same thing we've tried to
do with -EMEDIUMTYPE here, but more self-explanatory, since the fact is
that a domain itself should never be invalid for attaching to via its
own ops, and a group should never be inherently invalid for attaching to
a suitable domain, it is only ever a particular combination of group (or
device at the internal level) and domain that may not be valid together.
Thus as long as we can maintain that basic guarantee that attaching a
group to a newly allocated domain can only ever fail for resource
allocation reasons and not some spurious "incompatibility", then we
don't need any obscure trickery, and a single, clear, error code is in
fact enough to say all that needs to be said.
Whether iommu_attach_device() should also join the party and start
rejecting non-singleton-group devices with a different error, or
maintain its current behaviour since its legacy users already have their
expectations set, is another matter in its own right.
Cheers,
Robin.
[1]
https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-rm/-/commit/683cdff1b2d4ae11f56e38d93b37e66e8c939fc9
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
