On 2023/10/17 02:17, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:54:07AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 11:28:15AM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
On 2023/10/14 01:56, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:04:56AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:33:13PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
not really. Below the users of the struct iommu_user_data in my current iommufd_nesting branch. Only the domain_alloc_user op has type as there can be multiple vendor specific alloc data types. Basically, I'm ok to make the change you suggested, just not sure if it is good to add type as it is only needed by one path.
I don't think we should ever have an opaque data blob without a type tag..
I can add those "missing" data types, and then a driver will be responsible for sanitizing the type along with the data_len.
I notice that the enum iommu_hwpt_data_type in the posted patch is confined to the alloc_user uAPI. Perhaps we should share it with invalidate too:
invalidation path does not need a type field today as the data type is vendor specific, vendor driver should know the data type when calls in.
I'm not keen on that, what if a driver needs another type in the future? You'd want to make the invalidation data format part of the domain allocation?
The invalidation data has hwpt_id so it's tied to a hwpt and its hwpt->domain. Would it be reasonable to have a different type of invalidation data for the same type of hwpt?
this seems like what Jason asks. A type of hwpt can have two kinds of invalidation data types. Is it really possible?
With this being asked, I added it for our next version. At this moment, it only does a sanity job:
// API __iommu_copy_struct_from_user(void *dst_data, const struct iommu_user_data *src_data, unsigned int data_type, size_t data_len, size_t min_len) { if (src_data->type != data_type) return -EINVAL;
// Caller rc = iommu_copy_struct_from_user(&user_cfg, user_data, IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_SELFTEST, iotlb); if (rc) return ERR_PTR(rc);
Thanks Nic