lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 10/12] iommu: Prepare IOMMU domain for IOPF
From
On 2022/7/23 22:33, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 01:07:08PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> This adds some mechanisms around the iommu_domain so that the I/O page
>> fault handling framework could route a page fault to the domain and
>> call the fault handler from it.
>>
>> Add pointers to the page fault handler and its private data in struct
>> iommu_domain. The fault handler will be called with the private data
>> as a parameter once a page fault is routed to the domain. Any kernel
>> component which owns an iommu domain could install handler and its
>> private parameter so that the page fault could be further routed and
>> handled.
>>
>> This also prepares the SVA implementation to be the first consumer of
>> the per-domain page fault handling model. The I/O page fault handler
>> for SVA is copied to the SVA file with mmget_not_zero() added before
>> mmap_read_lock().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
>> Tested-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>
>> Tested-by: Tony Zhu <tony.zhu@intel.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/iommu.h | 3 ++
>> drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.h | 8 +++++
>> drivers/iommu/io-pgfault.c | 7 +++++
>> drivers/iommu/iommu-sva-lib.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 4 +++
>> 5 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h
>> index ae0cfca064e6..47610f21d451 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/iommu.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h
>> @@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ struct iommu_domain {
>> unsigned long pgsize_bitmap; /* Bitmap of page sizes in use */
>> struct iommu_domain_geometry geometry;
>> struct iommu_dma_cookie *iova_cookie;
>> + enum iommu_page_response_code (*iopf_handler)(struct iommu_fault *fault,
>> + void *data);
>> + void *fault_data;
>> union {
>> struct {
>> iommu_fault_handler_t handler;
>
> Why do we need two falut callbacks? The only difference is that one is
> recoverable and the other is not, right?
>
> Can we run both down the same op?

The iommu_fault_handler_t is for report_iommu_fault() which could be
replaced with the newer iommu_report_device_fault().

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/Yo4Nw9QyllT1RZbd@myrica/

>
>> +/*
>> + * I/O page fault handler for SVA
>> + */
>> +enum iommu_page_response_code
>> +iommu_sva_handle_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault, void *data)
>> +{
>> + vm_fault_t ret;
>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = data;
>> + unsigned int access_flags = 0;
>> + unsigned int fault_flags = FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE;
>> + struct iommu_fault_page_request *prm = &fault->prm;
>> + enum iommu_page_response_code status = IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID;
>> +
>> + if (!(prm->flags & IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PASID_VALID))
>> + return status;
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mm) || !mmget_not_zero(mm))
>
> Do not use IS_ERR_ON_NULL. mm should never be null here since the
> fault handler should have been removed from the domain before the
> fault_data is changed.

Yes. Updated.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-24 16:05    [W:0.166 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site