RE: [PATCH v4 04/22] iommu/vt-d: add bind_pasid_table function

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>]

> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 4:09 AM
> 
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:42:51 -0700
> Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:25:34 +0100
> > Jean-Philippe Brucker <Jean-Philippe.Brucker@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 08:10:47PM +0100, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > +	/* Assign guest PASID table pointer and size order */
> > > > > +	ctx_lo = (pasidt_binfo->base_ptr & VTD_PAGE_MASK) |
> > > > > +		(pasidt_binfo->pasid_bits - MIN_NR_PASID_BITS);
> > > >
> > > > Where does this IOMMU API interface define that base_ptr is 4K
> > > > aligned or the format of the PASID table?  Are these all
> > > > standardized or do they vary by host IOMMU?  If they're standards,
> > > > maybe we could note that and the spec which defines them when we
> > > > declare base_ptr.  If they're IOMMU specific then I don't
> > > > understand how we'll match a user provided PASID table to the
> > > > requirements and format of the host IOMMU. Thanks,
> > >
> > > On SMMUv3 the minimum alignment for base_ptr is 64 bytes, so a
> guest
> > > under a vSMMU might pass a pointer that's not aligned on 4k.
> > >
> > PASID table pointer for VT-d is 4K aligned.
> > > Maybe this information could be part of the data passed to userspace
> > > about IOMMU table formats and features? They're not part of this
> > > series, but I think we wanted to communicate IOMMU-specific features
> > > via sysfs.
> > >
> > Agreed, I believe Yi Liu is working on a sysfs interface such that QEMU
> > can match IOMMU model and features.
> 
> Digging this up again since v5 still has this issue.  The IOMMU API is
> a kernel internal abstraction of the IOMMU.  sysfs is a userspace
> interface.  Are we suggesting that the /only/ way to make use of the
> internal IOMMU API here is to have a user provided opaque pasid table
> that we can't even do minimal compatibility sanity testing on and we
> simply hope that hardware covers all the fault conditions without
> taking the host down with it?  I guess we have to assume the latter
> since the user has full control of the table, but I have a hard time
> getting past lack of internal ability to use the interface and no
> ability to provide even the slimmest sanity testing.  Thanks,
> 

checking size, alignment, ... is OK, which I think is already considered
by vendor IOMMU driver. However sanity testing table format might 
be difficult. The initial table provided by guest is likely just all ZEROs. 
whatever format violation may be caught only when a PASID entry 
is updated...

Thanks
Kevin