Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] vfio/iommu_type1: Simplify group attachment

From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"jordan@cosmicpenguin.net" <jordan@cosmicpenguin.net>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"alyssa@rosenzweig.io" <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	"jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	"saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org"
	<saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>,
	"zhang.lyra@gmail.com" <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org"
	<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	"jgg@nvidia.com" <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	"yangyingliang@huawei.com" <yangyingliang@huawei.com>,
	"orsonzhai@gmail.com" <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
	"gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
	"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	"christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr" <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
	"matthias.bgg@gmail.com" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
	<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"isaacm@codeaurora.org" <isaacm@codeaurora.org>,
	"dwmw2@infradead.org" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"marcan@marcan.st" <marcan@marcan.st>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"baolin.wang7@gmail.com" <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
	"linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] vfio/iommu_type1: Simplify group attachment
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:08:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrIzTX2Vg/iJ95hM@Asurada-Nvidia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55e352d5-3fea-7e46-0530-b41d323b6fcf@arm.com>

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:11:01AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 2022-06-17 03:53, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 6:41 AM
> > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > > -     if (resv_msi) {
> > > > > +     if (resv_msi && !domain->msi_cookie) {
> > > > >                ret = iommu_get_msi_cookie(domain->domain,
> > > > > resv_msi_base);
> > > > >                if (ret && ret != -ENODEV)
> > > > >                        goto out_detach;
> > > > > +             domain->msi_cookie = true;
> > > > >        }
> > > > 
> > > > why not moving to alloc_attach_domain() then no need for the new
> > > > domain field? It's required only when a new domain is allocated.
> > > 
> > > When reusing an existing domain that doesn't have an msi_cookie,
> > > we can do iommu_get_msi_cookie() if resv_msi is found. So it is
> > > not limited to a new domain.
> > 
> > Looks msi_cookie requirement is per platform (currently only
> > for smmu. see arm_smmu_get_resv_regions()). If there is
> > no mixed case then above check is not required.
> > 
> > But let's hear whether Robin has a different thought here.
> 
> Yes, the cookie should logically be tied to the lifetime of the domain
> itself. In the relevant context, "an existing domain that doesn't have
> an msi_cookie" should never exist.

Thanks for the explanation. I will move the iommu_get_msi_cookie()
into alloc_attach_domain(), as Kevin suggested.