Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] iommufd: Enforce pasid compatible domain for PASID-capable device

[Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>]

On 2024/12/11 16:46, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 11:15 AM
>>
>> On 2024/12/9 22:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure, I think we should not make it dependent on the device
>>> capability. There may be multiple devices in the iommufd and some of
>>> them may be PASID capable. The PASID capable domains should interwork
>>> with all of the devices. Thus I'd also expect to be able to allocate a
>>> PASID capable domain on a non-pasid capable device. Even though that
>>> would be pointless on its own.
>>
>> yes. I also had an offline email to confirm with Vasant, and he confirmed
>> a non-pasid capable device should be able to use pasid-capable domain (V2
>> page table.
> 
> It's hard to think any vendor would want to that type of restriction.
> whatever format adopted is purely IOMMU internal thing.
> 
>>>
>>> We want some reasonable compromise to encourage applications to use
>>> IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_PASID properly, but not build too much complexity
>> to
>>> reject driver-specific behavior.
>>
>> I'm ok to do it in iommufd as long as it is only applicable to hwpt_paging.
>> Otherwise, attaching nested domain to pasid would be failed according to
>> the aforementioned enforcement.
>>
> 
> IMHO we may want to have a general enforcement in IOMMUFD that
> any domain (paging or nested) must have ALLOC_PASID set to be
> used in pasid-oriented operations.
> 
> drivers can have more restrictions, e.g. for arm/amd allocating a nested
> domain with that bit set will fail at the beginning.

ARM/AMD should allow allocating nested domain with this flag. Otherwise,
it does not suit the ALLOC_PASID definition. It requires both the PASID
path and non-PASID path to use pasid-compat domain.

So maybe we should not stick with the initial purpose of ALLOC_PASID flag.
It actually means selecting V2 page table. But the definition of it allows
us to consider the nested domains to be pasid-compat as Intel allows it.
And, a sane userspace running on ARM/AMD will never attach nested domain
to PASIDs. Even it does, the ARM SMMU and AMD iommu driver can fail such
attempts. In this way, we can enforce the ALLOC_PASID flag for any domains
used by PASID-capable devices in iommufd. This suits the existing
ALLOC_PASID definition as well.

@Jason, your opinion? With this open closed, I can update this series.

Regards,
Yi Liu