Re: [PATCH 0/7] iommu cleanup and refactoring

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 09:51:36AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:

> > > they are fundamentally different things in their own right, and the ideal
> > > API should give us the orthogonality to also bind a device to an SVA domain
> > > without PASID (e.g. for KVM stage 2, or userspace assignment of simpler
> > > fault/stall-tolerant devices), or attach PASIDs to regular iommu_domains.
> > 
> > Yes, these are orthogonal things. A iommu driver that supports PASID
> > ideally should support PASID enabled attach/detatch for every
> > iommu_domain type it supports.
> > 
> > SVA should not be entangled with PASID beyond that SVA is often used
> > with PASID - a SVA iommu_domain should be fully usable with a RID too.
> 
> The prototype of PASID enabled attach/detach ops could look like:
> 
>        int (*attach_dev_pasid)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>                                struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);
>        void (*detach_dev_pasid)(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>                                 struct device *dev, ioasid_t id);

It seems reasonable and straightforward to me..

These would be domain ops?
 
> But the iommu driver should implement different callbacks for
> 
> 1) attaching an IOMMU DMA domain to a PASID on device;
>    - kernel DMA with PASID
>    - mdev-like device passthrough
>    - etc.
> 2) attaching a CPU-shared domain to a PASID on device;
>    - SVA
>    - guest PASID
>    - etc.

But this you mean domain->ops would be different? Seems fine, up to
the driver.

I'd hope to see some flow like:

 domain = device->bus->iommu_ops->alloc_sva_domain(dev)
 domain->ops->attach_dev_pasid(domain, dev, current->pasid)

To duplicate the current SVA APIs

Jason