Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 09/15] vtd: add lookup_page method to iommu_ops

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 07 August 2018 09:48
> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich
> <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 09/15] vtd: add lookup_page method to iommu_ops
> 
> > From: Paul Durrant [mailto:Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 4:37 PM
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 07 August 2018 09:33
> > > To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Paul Durrant
> > > <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-
> > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 09/15] vtd: add lookup_page method to
> > iommu_ops
> > >
> > > > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 4:30 PM
> > > >
> > > > >>> On 07.08.18 at 10:21, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > >> Sent: 07 August 2018 04:25
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > From: Paul Durrant [mailto:paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > >> > Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 1:22 AM
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> > > > >> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> > > > >> > @@ -1830,6 +1830,39 @@ static int __must_check
> > > > >> > intel_iommu_unmap_page(struct domain *d,
> > > > >> >      return dma_pte_clear_one(d, bfn_to_baddr(bfn));
> > > > >> >  }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > +static int intel_iommu_lookup_page(struct domain *d, bfn_t bfn,
> > > > mfn_t
> > > > >> > *mfn,
> > > > >> > +                                   unsigned int *flags)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Not looking at later patches yet... but in concept bfn address
> > > > >> space is per device instead of per domain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not in this case. Xen has always maintained a single IOMMU address
> > per
> > > > > virtual machine. That is what BFN refers to.
> > > >
> > > > Nut is that a model we can maintain mid and long term? In particular
> > > > on ARM, where Julien has told me a single system could have multiple
> > > > _different_ IOMMUs, I could easily see the address spaces diverging.
> > > >
> > >
> > > multiple IOMMUs is another thing.
> > >
> > > what I questioned is that even one IOMMU needs to support mulitiple
> > > address spaces. That is the point of an IOMMU...
> >
> > Indeed and that is why we use it to enforce domain separation. I see no
> > need, as yet, to enforce separation within a domain. That need may arise
> > later and the code can be modified at that point.
> >
> 
> but then you need completely different set of APIs at that time...

Ok. Would you be happy if I add the option to supply a an SBDF in the map and 
unmap hypercalls but ignore the value for now? Or even have a 'global' flag but 
return -EOPNOTSUPP if it is not specified. That would avoid the need to add new 
hypercalls for per-device mapping.

  Paul

> 
> Thanks
> Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel