Re: [PATCH v2 06/19] iommufd/viommu: Add IOMMU_VIOMMU_SET/UNSET_VDEV_ID ioctl

Nicolin Chen
2024-09-11T07:47:56Z

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:18:52AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:12 PM
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 06:19:10AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 4:15 AM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 02:43:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:37:45AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > > That being said, if we have a clear picture that in the long term
> > > > > > we would extend it to hold more information, I think it could be
> > > > > > a smart move.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps virtual device can have its own "attach" to vIOMMU? Or
> > > > > > would you still prefer attaching via proxy hwpt_nested?
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking just creating it against a vIOMMU is an effective
> > > > > "attach" and the virtual device is permanently tied to the vIOMMU at
> > > > > creation time.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, right! The create is per-viommu, so it's being attached.
> > > >
> > >
> > > presumably we also need check compatibility between the idev
> > > which the virtual device is created against and the stage-2 pgtable,
> > > as a normal attach required?
> >
> > If that's required, it can be a part of "create virtual device",
> > where idev and viommu (holding s2 hwpt) would be all available?
> >
>
> yes

Oh, I misread your question actually. I think it's about a matching
validation between dev->iommu->iommu_dev and vIOMMU->iommu_dev.

Thanks
Nicolin