On 2024/3/23 1:06, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:16:43AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
On 3/9/24 3:05 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:39:00PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
@@ -411,6 +414,8 @@ enum iommu_hwpt_data_type {
* @__reserved: Must be 0
* @data_type: One of enum iommu_hwpt_data_type
* @data_len: Length of the type specific data
+ * @fault_id: The ID of IOMMUFD_FAULT object. Valid only if flags field of
+ * IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID is set.
* @data_uptr: User pointer to the type specific data
*
* Explicitly allocate a hardware page table object. This is the same object
@@ -441,6 +446,7 @@ struct iommu_hwpt_alloc {
__u32 __reserved;
__u32 data_type;
__u32 data_len;
+ __u32 fault_id;
__aligned_u64 data_uptr;
};
?? We can't add fault_id in the middle of the struct??
Yes. I should add the new field at the end.
By the way, with a __u32 added, this data structure is not 64-byte-
aligned anymore. Do we need to add another unused u32 entry, or just let
the compiler handle it?
Yes, add a reserved u32 to ensure the structs is always without
implicit padding.
Sure.
+ if (cmd->flags & IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID) {
+ struct iommufd_fault *fault;
+
+ fault = iommufd_get_fault(ucmd, cmd->fault_id);
+ if (IS_ERR(fault)) {
+ rc = PTR_ERR(fault);
+ goto out_hwpt;
+ }
+ hwpt->fault = fault;
+ hwpt->domain->iopf_handler = iommufd_fault_iopf_handler;
+ hwpt->domain->fault_data = hwpt;
+ hwpt->fault_capable = true;
I wonder if there should be an iommu API to make a domain fault
capable?
The iommu core identifies a fault-capable domain by checking its
domain->iopf_handler. Anyway, what's the difference between a fault or
non-fault capable domain from iommu core's point of view?
From the core? Nothing. I'm just wondering from an API perspective if
we should have a little inline to indicate it.
I have no objection if there's a consumer for it.
Best regards,
baolu
