> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:34 AM > > On 5/15/24 4:37 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> + > >> + iopf_group_response(group, response.code); > > PCIe spec states that a response failure disables the PRI interface. For SR- > IOV > > it'd be dangerous allowing user to trigger such code to VF to close the > entire > > shared PRI interface. > > > > Just another example lacking of coordination for shared capabilities > between > > PF/VF. But exposing such gap to userspace makes it worse. > > Yes. You are right. > > > > > I guess we don't want to make this work depending on that cleanup. The > > minimal correct thing is to disallow attaching VF to a fault-capable hwpt > > with a note here that once we turn on support for VF the response failure > > code should not be forwarded to the hardware. Instead it's an indication > > that the user cannot serve more requests and such situation waits for > > a vPRI reset to recover. > > Is it the same thing to disallow PRI for VF in IOMMUFD? > yes
