Re: [PATCH 9/9] iommu: Use fault cookie to store iopf_param

[Baolu Lu]

On 2023/7/13 11:24, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:13 AM
> >
> > On 2023/7/12 6:02, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:06:42 +0800, Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ int iommu_queue_iopf(struct iommu_fault *fault,
> > > > struct device *dev)
> > > >    	 * As long as we're holding param->lock, the queue can't be
> > > > unlinked
> > > >    	 * from the device and therefore cannot disappear.
> > > >    	 */
> > > > -	iopf_param = param->iopf_param;
> > > > +	iopf_param = iommu_get_device_fault_cookie(dev, 0);
> > > I am not sure I understand how does it know the cookie type is iopf_param
> > > for PASID 0?
> > >
> > > Between IOPF and IOMMUFD use of the cookie, cookie types are different,
> > > right?
> >
> > The fault cookie is managed by the code that delivers or handles the
> > faults. The sva and IOMMUFD paths are exclusive.
>
> what about siov? A siov-capable device can support sva and iommufd
> simultaneously.

For siov case, the pasid should be global. RID and each pasid are still
exclusive, so I don't see any problem. Did I overlook anything?

Best regards,
baolu