RE: [PATCH v1 6/8] vfio/type1: Bind guest page tables to host

[Liu, Yi L]

Hi Jean,

> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker < jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx >
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/8] vfio/type1: Bind guest page tables to host
> 
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 08:05:29AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > > > static long vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl(void *iommu_data,
> > > > > >  		default:
> > > > > >  			return -EINVAL;
> > > > > >  		}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	} else if (cmd == VFIO_IOMMU_BIND) {
> > > > >
> > > > > BIND what? VFIO_IOMMU_BIND_PASID sounds clearer to me.
> > > >
> > > > Emm, it's up to the flags to indicate bind what. It was proposed to
> > > > cover the three cases below:
> > > > a) BIND/UNBIND_GPASID
> > > > b) BIND/UNBIND_GPASID_TABLE
> > > > c) BIND/UNBIND_PROCESS
> > > > <only a) is covered in this patch>
> > > > So it's called VFIO_IOMMU_BIND.
> > >
> > > but aren't they all about PASID related binding?
> >
> > yeah, I can rename it. :-)
> 
> I don't know if anyone intends to implement it, but SMMUv2 supports
> nesting translation without any PASID support. For that case the name
> VFIO_IOMMU_BIND_GUEST_PGTBL without "PASID" anywhere makes more sense.
> Ideally we'd also use a neutral name for the IOMMU API instead of
> bind_gpasid(), but that's easier to change later.

I agree VFIO_IOMMU_BIND is somehow not straight-forward. Especially, it may
cause confusion when thinking about VFIO_SET_IOMMU. How about using
VFIO_NESTING_IOMMU_BIND_STAGE1 to cover a) and b)? And has another
VFIO_BIND_PROCESS in future for the SVA bind case.

Regards,
Yi Liu