On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:49:26AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: > + * @IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_IOPF_CAPABLE: User is capable of handling IO page faults. This does not seem like the best name? Probably like this given my remark in the cover letter: --- a/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h @@ -359,6 +359,7 @@ struct iommu_vfio_ioas { enum iommufd_hwpt_alloc_flags { IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT = 1 << 0, IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING = 1 << 1, + IOMMU_HWPT_IOPFD_FD_VALID = 1 << 2, }; /** @@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ struct iommu_hwpt_alloc { __u32 data_type; __u32 data_len; __aligned_u64 data_uptr; + __s32 iopf_fd; }; #define IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC _IO(IOMMUFD_TYPE, IOMMUFD_CMD_HWPT_ALLOC) > @@ -679,6 +688,62 @@ struct iommu_dev_data_arm_smmuv3 { > __u32 sid; > }; > > +/** > + * struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault - iommu page fault data > + * @size: sizeof(struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault) > + * @flags: Combination of IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_ flags. > + * - PASID_VALID: @pasid field is valid > + * - LAST_PAGE: the last page fault in a group > + * - PRIV_DATA: @private_data field is valid > + * - RESP_NEEDS_PASID: the page response must have the same > + * PASID value as the page request. > + * @dev_id: id of the originated device > + * @pasid: Process Address Space ID > + * @grpid: Page Request Group Index > + * @perm: requested page permissions (IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_* values) > + * @addr: page address > + * @private_data: device-specific private information > + */ > +struct iommu_hwpt_pgfault { > + __u32 size; > + __u32 flags; > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_PASID_VALID (1 << 0) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_LAST_PAGE (1 << 1) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_PRIV_DATA (1 << 2) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_FLAGS_RESP_NEEDS_PASID (1 << 3) > + __u32 dev_id; > + __u32 pasid; > + __u32 grpid; > + __u32 perm; > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_READ (1 << 0) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_WRITE (1 << 1) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_EXEC (1 << 2) > +#define IOMMU_PGFAULT_PERM_PRIV (1 << 3) > + __u64 addr; > + __u64 private_data[2]; > +}; This mixed #define is not the style, these should be in enums, possibly with kdocs Use __aligned_u64 also > + > +/** > + * struct iommu_hwpt_response - IOMMU page fault response > + * @size: sizeof(struct iommu_hwpt_response) > + * @flags: Must be set to 0 > + * @hwpt_id: hwpt ID of target hardware page table for the response > + * @dev_id: device ID of target device for the response > + * @pasid: Process Address Space ID > + * @grpid: Page Request Group Index > + * @code: response code. The supported codes include: > + * 0: Successful; 1: Response Failure; 2: Invalid Request. > + */ > +struct iommu_hwpt_page_response { > + __u32 size; > + __u32 flags; > + __u32 hwpt_id; > + __u32 dev_id; > + __u32 pasid; > + __u32 grpid; > + __u32 code; > +}; Is it OK to have the user pass in all this detailed information? Is it a security problem if the user lies? Ie shouldn't we only ack page faults we actually have outstanding? IOW should iommu_hwpt_pgfault just have a 'response_cookie' generated by the kernel that should be placed here? The kernel would keep track of all this internal stuff? Jason