From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ABE979D3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2024 01:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716168937; cv=none; b=D9rUB+1mDPpvW2FJMeltca1cbl7XqUfaoHJPV52fOUMQ7nkVXPN6pRidbEwAOmvKKcc4+GafGTor3hiPVFAwdTkrr+Ta1b2FccY3Byw2pWuwrNNFLGe7EzYujw5/wkPyJK7qmq0T89V+oNXb2ui4YjMuzZ+5Ajg2fqizduYKDt4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716168937; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VR6ZYeZcCM4yblOV/1NPtY2M0KZ0UgfEH1ScYqV1UsE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=exT+q+tXq6FvMNIfmMlW2Pn5RWfbNKH9JMPqnLf5+8YfyuKlC2b6xmZ/3WcMJ49z8i6hIEpIzrWTNE6JaOq3fsX6ec1ri0YxkLHkhZX5aNO9tHo679ylw7k5kOyGYJAUJdYmiMF3T1G9Z6Z/dT2DJMjM2hxGqs0ZNjGKyI5WmDo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=MX/OBBvx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="MX/OBBvx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1716168936; x=1747704936; h=message-id:date:mime-version:cc:subject:to:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VR6ZYeZcCM4yblOV/1NPtY2M0KZ0UgfEH1ScYqV1UsE=; b=MX/OBBvxeYuL69ICc1ROdhAuO0s2bHRb7g4H+AMw/m0y1Oz8jeP0Jb+L VqsI9+Esy3/P77q0qaz2E0oO/58fudApG7Gbm1XYGL/15PyYMaJCAKLqA MQnXWDoKhD+ajZoXa27dyJ1Uhq3OSkccDvhXb34jTncKmF5syQlII78mM VrepNEPtadkq9vWOMXBrcMgoVjRyY8lCPbnfnK+n0RURAthXZ7NrlI+pF VkG8kEd1HdYRzdBokKkiGKBQwVehz62/13H+ScMul84fDYltdI3UXlbr3 wlYNOa9pY+SqfpjpupeQBrozO8b9SS9NTLJmFJf6yNA+YCmVu8fOq/5eJ w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6zAVtiJFT6+A5UoZIyEvLg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 8JBHExPPR3y3gzrcPB+4sA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11077"; a="12399687" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,174,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="12399687" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2024 18:35:36 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: QUaP7uYHRRyDzJoDH8+C4A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: yZT4bqSOQCGZ3TdBEi/f4w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,174,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="69808925" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.239.159.127]) ([10.239.159.127]) by orviesa001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2024 18:35:32 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 09:33:41 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, "iommu@lists.linux.dev" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] iommufd: Add iommufd fault object To: "Tian, Kevin" , Jason Gunthorpe , Joerg Roedel , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Nicolin Chen , "Liu, Yi L" , Jacob Pan , Joel Granados References: <20240430145710.68112-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <20240430145710.68112-6-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Baolu Lu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/15/24 4:37 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> + >> + iopf_group_response(group, response.code); > PCIe spec states that a response failure disables the PRI interface. For SR-IOV > it'd be dangerous allowing user to trigger such code to VF to close the entire > shared PRI interface. > > Just another example lacking of coordination for shared capabilities between > PF/VF. But exposing such gap to userspace makes it worse. Yes. You are right. > > I guess we don't want to make this work depending on that cleanup. The > minimal correct thing is to disallow attaching VF to a fault-capable hwpt > with a note here that once we turn on support for VF the response failure > code should not be forwarded to the hardware. Instead it's an indication > that the user cannot serve more requests and such situation waits for > a vPRI reset to recover. Is it the same thing to disallow PRI for VF in IOMMUFD? Best regards, baolu