On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 22:53, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:30:10PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 21:53, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 12:25:03PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > smmu-v3 needs some more fixing to move that > > > > > > arm_smmu_master_enable_sva() logic into domain attachment. > > > > > > > > > > Will think about this, Thanks Jason > > > > > > > > Can you test it if a patch is made? > > > > > > Here it is: > > > > > > https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/smmuv3_nesting/ > > > > > > fa1528253d2210 iommu: Remove IOMMU_DEV_FEAT_SVA > > > 5675560a272cf5 iommu/vt-d: Check if SVA is supported when attaching the SVA domain > > > 94bc2b9525b508 iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Put iopf enablement in the domain attach path > > > > > > Let me know.. > > > > With these patches, do we still need ops->user_pasid_table? > > It makes no change - you need user_pasid_table to make > IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED work. > > If you aren't using IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED you shouldn't need it. OK, I misunderstood. Then with user_pasid_table=1 both with these patches and without patches, user page fault is OK. > > > if (fault->prm.flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID) { > > attach_handle = iommu_attach_handle_get(dev->iommu_group, > > fault->prm.pasid, 0); > > > > // is attach_handle expected effect value here? > > if (IS_ERR(attach_handle)) { > > const struct iommu_ops *ops = dev_iommu_ops(dev); > > > > if (!ops->user_pasid_table) > > return NULL; > > /* > > * The iommu driver for this device supports user- > > * managed PASID table. Therefore page faults for > > * any PASID should go through the NESTING domain > > * attached to the device RID. > > */ > > attach_handle = iommu_attach_handle_get( > > dev->iommu_group, IOMMU_NO_PASID, > > IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED); > > > > Now I still need set ops->user_pasid_table, since attach_handle can not > > return from the first iommu_attach_handle_get with fault->prm.pasid = 1, > > but the second iommu_attach_handle_get with IOMMU_NO_PASID, > > suppose it is not expected? > > The second handle_get will always fail unless you are using > IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED in userspace with iommufd. > > What testing are you doing exactly? I am testing vsva based on Nico's iommufd_viommu_p2-v3 branch, which requires IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED in user space with iommufd. About the three patches 1. Tested host sva, OK 2. Simply tested vsva on guests, OK, will do more tests. Thanks
