Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iommufd/viommu: Add iommufd_viommu_get_vdev_id helper

[Nicolin Chen]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 10:28:32AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 12/19/24 13:06, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:05:53AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > On 12/18/24 13:00, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > This is a reverse search v.s. iommufd_viommu_find_dev, as drivers may want
> > > > to convert a struct device pointer (physical) to its virtual device ID for
> > > > an event injection to the user space VM.
> > > > 
> > > > Again, this avoids exposing more core structures to the drivers, than the
> > > > iommufd_viommu alone.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen<nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    include/linux/iommufd.h        |  8 ++++++++
> > > >    drivers/iommu/iommufd/driver.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >    2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/iommufd.h b/include/linux/iommufd.h
> > > > index b082676c9e43..ac1f1897d290 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/iommufd.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/iommufd.h
> > > > @@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ struct iommufd_object *_iommufd_object_alloc(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx,
> > > >    					     enum iommufd_object_type type);
> > > >    struct device *iommufd_viommu_find_dev(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
> > > >    				       unsigned long vdev_id);
> > > > +unsigned long iommufd_viommu_get_vdev_id(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu,
> > > > +					 struct device *dev);
> > > Hi Nicolin,
> > > 
> > > This series overall looks good to me. But I have a question that might
> > > be irrelevant to this series itself.
> > > 
> > > The iommufd provides both IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE and IOMMUFD_OBJ_VDEVICE
> > > objects. What is the essential difference between these two from
> > > userspace's perspective?
> > A quick answer is an IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE being a host physical
> > device and an IOMMUFD_OBJ_VDEVICE being an IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE
> > related to IOMMUFD_OBJ_VIOMMU. Two of them can be seen in two
> > different layers. May refer to this graph:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
> > Documentation/userspace-api/iommufd.rst?h=v6.13-rc3#n150
> > 
> > > And, which object ID should the IOMMU device
> > > driver provide when reporting other events in the future?
> > > 
> > > Currently, the IOMMUFD uAPI reports IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE in the page
> > > fault message, and IOMMUFD_OBJ_VDEVICE (if I understand it correctly) in
> > > the vIRQ message. It will be more future-proof if this could be defined
> > > clearly.
> > A vIRQ is actually reported per-vIOMMU in this design. Although
> > in the this series the SMMU driver seems to report a per-device
> > vIRQ, it internally converts the vDEVICE to a virtual device ID
> > and packs the virtual device ID into a per-vIOMMU event:
> > 
> > +/**
> > + * struct iommu_virq_arm_smmuv3 - ARM SMMUv3 Virtual IRQ
> > + *                                (IOMMU_VIRQ_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3)
> > + * @evt: 256-bit ARM SMMUv3 Event record, little-endian.
> > + *       (Refer to "7.3 Event records" in SMMUv3 HW Spec)
> > + *
> > + * StreamID field reports a virtual device ID. To receive a virtual IRQ for a
> > + * device, a vDEVICE must be allocated via IOMMU_VDEVICE_ALLOC.
> > + */
> > +struct iommu_virq_arm_smmuv3 {
> > +	__aligned_le64 evt[4];
> >   };
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I am a bit over-considering here.
> 
> Initially, my understanding is to report a virtual device ID when the
> object originates from a vIOMMU, and an iommufd device ID otherwise.
> 
> However, considering page fault scenarios, which are self-contained but
> linked to a hardware page table (hwpt), introduces ambiguity. Hwpt can
> be created with or without a vIOMMU. This raises the question: should
> the page fault message always report the iommufd device ID, or should
> the reporting depend on whether the hwpt was created from a vIOMMU?

As you mentioned, HWPT itself can report IO page faults regardless
of vIOMMU-based or not, i.e. it should just work fine with a HWPT-
based model or a vIOMMU-based model.

On the other hand, I think vIRQ can be seen as just a supplementary
pathway to report non-HWPT faults, e.g. in arm-smmu-v3's interrupt
handler, the logic is:
    if (pri_is_supported && fault_is_iopgfault)
        report via hwpt->fault;
    else if (virq_is_registered && fault_is_virq)
        report via virq;
    else
        print an unhandled irq;

Thanks
Nicolin