Re: [PATCH kernel 3/3] powerpc/iommu: Add iommu_ops to report capabilities and allow blocking domains
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Date: 2022-07-18 18:10:32
Also in:
kvm
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 06:18:22PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
+/*
+ * A simple iommu_ops to allow less cruft in generic VFIO code.
+ */
+static bool spapr_tce_iommu_capable(enum iommu_cap cap)
+{
+ switch (cap) {
+ case IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY:I would add a remark here that it is because vfio is going to use SPAPR mode but still checks that the iommu driver support coherency - with out that detail it looks very strange to have caps without implementing unmanaged domains
+static struct iommu_domain *spapr_tce_iommu_domain_alloc(unsigned int type)
+{
+ struct iommu_domain *dom;
+
+ if (type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED)
+ return NULL;
+
+ dom = kzalloc(sizeof(*dom), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!dom)
+ return NULL;
+
+ dom->geometry.aperture_start = 0;
+ dom->geometry.aperture_end = ~0ULL;
+ dom->geometry.force_aperture = true;A blocked domain doesn't really have an aperture, all DMA is rejected, so I think these can just be deleted and left at zero. Generally I'm suggesting drivers just use a static singleton instance for the blocked domain instead of the allocation like this, but that is a very minor nit.
+static struct iommu_device *spapr_tce_iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pci_dev *pdev;
+ struct pci_controller *hose;
+
+ /* Weirdly iommu_device_register() assigns the same ops to all buses */
+ if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);Less "weirdly", more by design. The iommu driver should check if the given struct device is supported or not, it isn't really a bus specific operation.
+static struct iommu_group *spapr_tce_iommu_device_group(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct pci_controller *hose;
+ struct pci_dev *pdev;
+
+ /* Weirdly iommu_device_register() assigns the same ops to all buses */
+ if (!dev_is_pci(dev))
+ return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);This doesn't need repeating, if probe_device() fails then this will never be called.
+static int spapr_tce_iommu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *dom,
+ struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct iommu_group *grp = iommu_group_get(dev);
+ struct iommu_table_group *table_group;
+ int ret = -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!grp)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ table_group = iommu_group_get_iommudata(grp);
+
+ if (dom->type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED)
+ ret = table_group->ops->take_ownership(table_group);Ideally there shouldn't be dom->type checks like this. The blocking domain should have its own iommu_domain_ops that only process the blocking operation. Ie call this like spapr_tce_iommu_blocking_attach_dev() Instead of having a "default_domain_ops" leave it NULL and create a spapr_tce_blocking_domain_ops with these two functions and assign it to domain->ops when creating. Then it is really clear these functions are only called for the DOMAIN_BLOCKED type and you don't need to check it.
+static void spapr_tce_iommu_detach_dev(struct iommu_domain *dom,
+ struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct iommu_group *grp = iommu_group_get(dev);
+ struct iommu_table_group *table_group;
+
+ table_group = iommu_group_get_iommudata(grp);
+ WARN_ON(dom->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED);
+ table_group->ops->release_ownership(table_group);
+}Ditto
+struct iommu_group *pSeries_pci_device_group(struct pci_controller *hose,
+ struct pci_dev *pdev)
+{
+ struct device_node *pdn, *dn = pdev->dev.of_node;
+ struct iommu_group *grp;
+ struct pci_dn *pci;
+
+ pdn = pci_dma_find(dn, NULL);
+ if (!pdn || !PCI_DN(pdn))
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+
+ pci = PCI_DN(pdn);
+ if (!pci->table_group)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+
+ grp = pci->table_group->group;
+ if (!grp)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+
+ return iommu_group_ref_get(grp);Not for this series, but this is kind of backwards, the driver specific data (ie the table_group) should be in iommu_group_get_iommudata()...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c index 8a65ea61744c..3b53b466e49b 100644 --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c@@ -1152,8 +1152,6 @@ static void tce_iommu_release_ownership(struct tce_container *container, for (i = 0; i < IOMMU_TABLE_GROUP_MAX_TABLES; ++i) if (container->tables[i]) table_group->ops->unset_window(table_group, i); - - table_group->ops->release_ownership(table_group); } static long tce_iommu_take_ownership(struct tce_container *container,@@ -1161,10 +1159,6 @@ static long tce_iommu_take_ownership(struct tce_container *container, { long i, ret = 0; - ret = table_group->ops->take_ownership(table_group); - if (ret) - return ret; - /* Set all windows to the new group */ for (i = 0; i < IOMMU_TABLE_GROUP_MAX_TABLES; ++i) { struct iommu_table *tbl = container->tables[i];@@ -1183,8 +1177,6 @@ static long tce_iommu_take_ownership(struct tce_container *container, for (i = 0; i < IOMMU_TABLE_GROUP_MAX_TABLES; ++i) table_group->ops->unset_window(table_group, i); - table_group->ops->release_ownership(table_group); -
This is great, makes alot of sense. Anyhow, it all looks fine to me as is even: Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> Jason