Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu: add api to get iommu_domain of a device

[Alex Williamson]

On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 17:23 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:43 PM
> > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > Cc: joro@xxxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; agraf@xxxxxxx; Wood Scott-B07421; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > foundation.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu: add api to get iommu_domain of a device
> > 
> > On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 16:47 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:15 PM
> > > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > > > Cc: joro@xxxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > agraf@xxxxxxx; Wood Scott-B07421; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxx foundation.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu: add api to get iommu_domain of a
> > > > device
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 09:54 +0000, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > [mailto:linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:16 PM
> > > > > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > > > > > Cc: joro@xxxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > > galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > > linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > > agraf@xxxxxxx; Wood Scott-B07421; iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > foundation.org; Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] iommu: add api to get iommu_domain of a
> > > > > > device
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 12:59 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote:
> > > > > > > This api return the iommu domain to which the device is attached.
> > > > > > > The iommu_domain is required for making API calls related to iommu.
> > > > > > > Follow up patches which use this API to know iommu maping.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  drivers/iommu/iommu.c |   10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > >  include/linux/iommu.h |    7 +++++++
> > > > > > >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > > > > > index
> > > > > > > fbe9ca7..6ac5f50 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > > > > > > @@ -696,6 +696,16 @@ void iommu_detach_device(struct
> > > > > > > iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev)  }
> > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_detach_device);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +struct iommu_domain *iommu_get_dev_domain(struct device *dev) {
> > > > > > > +	struct iommu_ops *ops = dev->bus->iommu_ops;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	if (unlikely(ops == NULL || ops->get_dev_iommu_domain == NULL))
> > > > > > > +		return NULL;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	return ops->get_dev_iommu_domain(dev); }
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_get_dev_domain);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What prevents this from racing iommu_domain_free()?  There's no
> > > > > > references acquired, so there's no reason for the caller to
> > > > > > assume the
> > > > pointer is valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for late query, somehow this email went into a folder and
> > > > > escaped;
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to be sure, there is not lock at generic "struct
> > > > > iommu_domain", but IP
> > > > specific structure (link FSL domain) linked in iommu_domain->priv
> > > > have a lock, so we need to ensure this race in FSL iommu code (say
> > > > drivers/iommu/fsl_pamu_domain.c), right?
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not sufficient to make sure that your use of the interface
> > > > is race free.  The interface itself needs to be designed so that
> > > > it's difficult to use incorrectly.
> > >
> > > So we can define iommu_get_dev_domain()/iommu_put_dev_domain();
> > > iommu_get_dev_domain() will return domain with the lock held, and
> > > iommu_put_dev_domain() will release the lock? And
> > > iommu_get_dev_domain() must always be followed by
> > > iommu_get_dev_domain().
> > 
> > What lock?  get/put are generally used for reference counting, not locking in
> > the kernel.
> > 
> > > > That's not the case here.  This is a backdoor to get the iommu
> > > > domain from the iommu driver regardless of who is using it or how.
> > > > The iommu domain is created and managed by vfio, so shouldn't we be
> > > > looking at how to do this through vfio?
> > >
> > > Let me first describe what we are doing here:
> > > During initialization:-
> > >  - vfio talks to MSI system to know the MSI-page and size
> > >  - vfio then interacts with iommu to map the MSI-page in iommu (IOVA
> > > is decided by userspace and physical address is the MSI-page)
> > >  - So the IOVA subwindow mapping is created in iommu and yes VFIO know about
> > this mapping.
> > >
> > > Now do SET_IRQ(MSI/MSIX) ioctl:
> > >  - calls pci_enable_msix()/pci_enable_msi_block(): which is supposed to set
> > MSI address/data in device.
> > >  - So in current implementation (this patchset) msi-subsystem gets the IOVA
> > from iommu via this defined interface.
> > >  - Are you saying that rather than getting this from iommu, we should get this
> > from vfio? What difference does this make?
> > 
> > Yes, you just said above that vfio knows the msi to iova mapping, so why go
> > outside of vfio to find it later?  The difference is one case you can have a
> > proper reference to data structures to make sure the pointer you get back
> > actually has meaning at the time you're using it vs the code here where you're
> > defining an API that returns a meaningless value
> 
> With FSL-PAMU we will always get consistant data from iommu or vfio-data structure.

Great, but you're trying to add a generic API to the IOMMU subsystem
that's difficult to use correctly.  The fact that you use it correctly
does not justify the API.

> > because you can't check or
> > enforce that an arbitrary caller is using it correctly.
> 
> I am not sure what is arbitrary caller? pdev is known to vfio, so vfio
> will only make pci_enable_msix()/pci_enable_msi_block() for this pdev.
> If anyother code makes then it is some other unexpectedly thing
> happening in system, no?

What's proposed here is a generic IOMMU API.  Anybody can call this.
What if the host SCSI driver decides to go get the iommu domain for it's
device (or any other device)?  Does that fit your usage model?

> >  It's not maintainable.
> > Thanks,
> 
> I do not have any issue with this as well, can you also describe the type of API you are envisioning;
> I can think of defining some function in vfio.c/vfio_iommu*.c, make them global and declare then in include/Linux/vfio.h
> And include <Linux/vfio.h> in caller file (arch/powerpc/kernel/msi.c)

Do you really want module dependencies between vfio and your core kernel
MSI setup?  Look at the vfio external user interface that we've already
defined.  That allows other components of the kernel to get a proper
reference to a vfio group.  From there you can work out how to get what
you want.  Another alternative is that vfio could register an MSI to
IOVA mapping with architecture code when the mapping is created.  The
MSI setup path could then do a lookup in architecture code for the
mapping.  You could even store the MSI to IOVA mapping in VFIO and
create an interface where SET_IRQ passes that mapping into setup code.
Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/