Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/11] iommu: Add iommu_group_singleton_lockdown()

[Lu Baolu]

On 2022/4/5 22:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 02:12:42PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > On 2022/4/5 1:24, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 01:43:49PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > > On 2022/3/30 19:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > > Testing the group size is inherently the wrong test to make.
> > > > > > What is your suggestion then?
> > > > > Add a flag to the group that positively indicates the group can never
> > > > > have more than one member, even after hot plug. eg because it is
> > > > > impossible due to ACS, or lack of bridges, and so on.
> > > >
> > > > The check method seems to be bus specific. For platform devices, perhaps
> > > > this kind of information should be retrieved from firmware interfaces
> > > > like APCI or DT.
> > > >
> > > >   From this point of view, would it be simpler and more reasonable for the
> > > > device driver to do such check? After all, it is the device driver that
> > > > decides whether to provide SVA services to the application via uacce.
> > >
> > > The check has to do with the interconnect, not the device - I don't
> > > see how a device driver would know any better.
> >
> > I'm worried about how to support this group flag for devices that are
> > not connected to the system through PCI buses. If IOMMU can support
> > sva_bind() only when this flag is set, the SVA on many devices cannot
> > be supported. Or this flag is always set for non PCI devices by
> > default?
>
> IHMO it is not so different from how we determine if ACS like
> functionality is supported on non-PCI. It is really just a more narrow
> application of the existing ACS idea.
>
> For instance it may be that if the iommu_group came from DT we can
> assume it is static and then singleton can know ACS is reliable.

Okay, let me head this direction.

Best regards,
baolu