Hi Jean,
On 9/21/21 9:46 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:21:46PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Once the page faults are handled, the response has to be sent to
virtio-iommu backend, from where it can be sent to the host to
prepare the response to a generated io page fault by the device.
Add a new virt-queue request type to handle this.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <[email protected]>
---
include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
index c12d9b6a7243..1b174b98663a 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct virtio_iommu_config {
#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_PROBE 0x05
#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_ATTACH_TABLE 0x06
#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_INVALIDATE 0x07
+#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_T_PAGE_RESP 0x08
/* Status types */
#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_S_OK 0x00
@@ -70,6 +71,23 @@ struct virtio_iommu_req_tail {
__u8 reserved[3];
};
+struct virtio_iommu_req_page_resp {
+ struct virtio_iommu_req_head head;
+ __le32 domain;
I don't think we need this field, since the fault report doesn't come with
a domain.
But here we are sending the response which would be consumed by the vfio
ultimately. In kvmtool, I am consuming this "virtio_iommu_req_page_resp"
request in the virtio/iommu driver, extracting the domain from it, and
using that to call the respective "page_response" ops from
"vfio_iommu_ops" in the vfio/core driver.
Is this incorrect way of passing on the page-response back to the host
kernel?
But I think this will have to be worked out with the /dev/iommu framework.
+ __le32 endpoint;
+#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID (1 << 0)
To be consistent with the rest of the document this would be
VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_F_PASID_VALID
Sure, will update this.
+ __le32 flags;
+ __le32 pasid;
+ __le32 grpid;
+#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_SUCCESS (0x0)
+#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID (0x1)
+#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_FAILURE (0x2)
+ __le16 resp_code;
+ __u8 pasid_valid;
This field isn't needed since there already is
VIRTIO_IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_PASID_VALID
Yes, sure will remove this field.
+ __u8 reserved[9];
+ struct virtio_iommu_req_tail tail;
+};
I'd align the size of the struct to 16 bytes, but I don't think that's
strictly necessary.
Will fix this. Thanks a lot for reviewing.
Best regards
Vivek
Thanks,
Jean
+
struct virtio_iommu_req_attach {
struct virtio_iommu_req_head head;
__le32 domain;
--
2.17.1
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
