Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Replace vsmmu_size/type with get_viommu_size

[Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@google.com>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 01:37:53PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 01:04:44PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > @@ -1273,6 +1279,10 @@ tegra241_cmdqv_init_vintf_user(struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu,
> > >  	phys_addr_t page0_base;
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  
> > > +	/* Unsupported type was rejected in tegra241_cmdqv_get_vintf_size() */
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(vsmmu->core.type != IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_TEGRA241_CMDQV))
> > > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +
> > 
> > Nit: I don't think we'd expect a call to this if the vintf_size returned
> > 0? I see that in iommufd_viommu_alloc_ioctl, we already have a check:
> 
> It's added in the previous patch where I explained that this is
> to detect data corruption. When something like that happens, it
> would be often illogical.
> 

Right.. I got mis-led by the comment, my point is that if an
"unsupported type" was rejected in _get_vintf_size, we wouldn't be here
calling viommu_init since we error out based on the check in
iommufd_viommu_alloc_ioctl.. but yes, if there was some data corruption
that changed the viommu type between these calls, I guess it makes sense
to check and error out here.

> > And call ops->viommu_init only when the above isn't met. Thus,
> > if we still end up calling ops->viommu_init, shouldn't we BUG_ON() it?
> > I'd rather have the core code handle such things (since the driver is
> > simply implementing the ops) and BUG_ON() something that's terribly
> > wrong..
> 
> BUG_ON is discouraged following the coding style:
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-style.html#use-warn-rather-than-bug
> 

Noted. Thanks.

> > I can't see any ops->viommu_init being called elsewhere atm, let me
> > know if there's a different path that I missed..
> 
> I see it as a precaution that should never get triggered. But in
> case that it happens, I don't want it to proceed further wasting
> precious HW resource given that this function allocates a VINTF.
> 

Agreed.

> Nicolin

Praan