Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: PPC: Add support for IOMMU in-kernel handling

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2795 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 08:28:06AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 22:03 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 18:48 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > On 06/20/2013 05:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 15:28 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > >>> Just out of curiosity - would not get_file() and fput_atomic() on a
> > > > >> group's
> > > > >>> file* do the right job instead of vfio_group_add_external_user() and
> > > > >>> vfio_group_del_external_user()?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was thinking that too.  Grabbing a file reference would certainly be
> > > > >> the usual way of handling this sort of thing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But that wouldn't prevent the group ownership to be returned to
> > > > > the kernel or another user would it ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Holding the file pointer does not let the group->container_users counter go
> > > > to zero
> > > 
> > > How so?  Holding the file pointer means the file won't go away, which
> > > means the group release function won't be called.  That means the group
> > > won't go away, but that doesn't mean it's attached to an IOMMU.  A user
> > > could call UNSET_CONTAINER.
> > 
> > Uhh... *thinks*.  Ah, I see.
> > 
> > I think the interface should not take the group fd, but the container
> > fd.  Holding a reference to *that* would keep the necessary things
> > around.  But more to the point, it's the right thing semantically:
> > 
> > The container is essentially the handle on a host iommu address space,
> > and so that's what should be bound by the KVM call to a particular
> > guest iommu address space.  e.g. it would make no sense to bind two
> > different groups to different guest iommu address spaces, if they were
> > in the same container - the guest thinks they are different spaces,
> > but if they're in the same container they must be the same space.
> 
> While the container is the gateway to the iommu, what empowers the
> container to maintain an iommu is the group.  What happens to a
> container when all the groups are disconnected or closed?  Groups are
> the unit that indicates hardware access, not containers.  Thanks,

Uh... huh?  I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

The operation we're doing for KVM here is binding a guest iommu
address space to a particular host iommu address space.  Why would we
not want to use the obvious handle on the host iommu address space,
which is the container fd?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]