On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:53:58PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:31:11PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 08:35:56PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:

quoted

oN sAt, Feb 22, 2025 at 07:54:09AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
index 5aa2e7af58b4..364d8469a480 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c

@@ -85,6 +85,59 @@ static void arm_smmu_make_nested_domain_ste(
 	}
 }
 
+int arm_smmu_attach_prepare_vmaster(struct arm_smmu_attach_state *state,
+				    struct iommu_domain *domain)
+{
+	struct arm_smmu_nested_domain *nested_domain;
+	struct arm_smmu_vmaster *vmaster;
+	unsigned long vsid;
+	int ret;
+
+	iommu_group_mutex_assert(state->master->dev);
+
+	if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED)
+		return 0;
+	nested_domain = to_smmu_nested_domain(domain);
+
+	/* Skip invalid vSTE */
+	if (!(nested_domain->ste[0] & cpu_to_le64(STRTAB_STE_0_V)))
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = iommufd_viommu_get_vdev_id(&nested_domain->vsmmu->core,
+					 state->master->dev, &vsid);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	vmaster = kzalloc(sizeof(*vmaster), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!vmaster)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	vmaster->vsmmu = nested_domain->vsmmu;
+	vmaster->vsid = vsid;
+	state->vmaster = vmaster;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void arm_smmu_attach_commit_vmaster(struct arm_smmu_attach_state *state)
+{
+	struct arm_smmu_master *master = state->master;
+
+	mutex_lock(&master->smmu->streams_mutex);
+	if (state->vmaster != master->vmaster) {
+		kfree(master->vmaster);
+		master->vmaster = state->vmaster;
+	}

Does this condition suggest that we might end up calling
`arm_smmu_attach_prepare_vmaster()` multiple times before __actually__
commiting to a vmaster?

No. prepare() and commit() are 1:1. How is it interpreted to have
"multiple times"?

Ohh alright. I was just confused about why do we need to check:
`if (state->vmaster != master->vmaster)` ?

Hmm, it's probably not necessary, since we always allocate a new
vmaster pointer to the "state" or set a NULL.

I will clean that up a bit.

Thanks
Nicolin