Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on kernel-managed domains

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:59:13AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:55:01AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:43:58AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > 
> > > What we want to prevent is attaching a non-CC device to a CC domain
> > > or upgrade a non-CC domain to CC since in both case the non-CC
> > > device will be broken due to incompatible page table format.
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> > > Who cares about such consistency? sure the result is different due to order:
> > > 
> > > 1) creating hwpt for dev1 (non-CC) then later attaching hwpt to
> > >     dev2 (CC) will succeed;
> > > 
> > > 2) creating hwpt for dev2 (CC) then later attaching hwpt to
> > >     dev1 (non-CC) will fail then the user should create a new hwpt
> > >     for dev1;
> > 
> > AH... So really what the Intel driver wants is not upgrade to CC but
> > *downgrade* from CC.
> > 
> > non-CC is the type that is universally applicable, so if we come
> > across a non-CC capable device the proper/optimal thing is to degrade
> > the HWPT and re-use it, not allocate a new HWPT.
> > 
> > So the whole thing is upside down.
> > 
> > As changing the IOPTEs in flight seems hard, and I don't want to see
> > the Intel driver get slowed down to accomodate this, I think you are
> > right to say this should be a creation time property only.
> > 
> > I still think userspace should be able to select it so it can minimize
> > the number of HWPTs required.
> > 
> > > But the user shouldn't assume such explicit consistency since it's not
> > > defined in our uAPI. All we defined is that the attaching may
> > > fail due to incompatibility for whatever reason then the user can
> > > always try creating a new hwpt for the to-be-attached device. From
> > > this regard I don't see providing consistency of result is
> > > necessary. 😊
> > 
> > Anyhow, OK, lets add a comment summarizing your points and remove the
> > cc upgrade at attach time (sorry Nicolin/Yi!)
> 
> Ack. I will send a small removal series. I assume it should CC
> stable tree also? 

No, it seems more like tidying that fixing a functional issue, do I
misunderstand?

> And where should we add this comment? Kdoc of
> the alloc uAPI?

Maybe right in front of the only enforce_cc op callback?

Jason