On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:07:01PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> +static int intel_iommu_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> + struct device *dev,
> + ioasid_t pasid)
> +{
> + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> + struct dmar_domain *dmar_domain = to_dmar_domain(domain);
> + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!sm_supported(iommu) || !info)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&device_domain_lock, flags);
> + /*
> + * If the same device already has a PASID attached, just return.
> + * DMA layer will return the PASID value to the caller.
> + */
> + if (pasid != PASID_RID2PASID && info->pasid) {
Why check for PASID == 0 like this? Shouldn't pasid == 0 be rejected
as an invalid argument?
> + if (info->pasid == pasid)
> + ret = 0;
Doesn't this need to check that the current domain is the requested
domain as well? How can this happen anyhow - isn't it an error to
double attach?
> diff --git a/include/linux/intel-iommu.h b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
> index 5af24befc9f1..55845a8c4f4d 100644
> +++ b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
> @@ -627,6 +627,7 @@ struct device_domain_info {
> struct intel_iommu *iommu; /* IOMMU used by this device */
> struct dmar_domain *domain; /* pointer to domain */
> struct pasid_table *pasid_table; /* pasid table */
> + ioasid_t pasid; /* DMA request with PASID */
And this seems wrong - the DMA API is not the only user of
attach_dev_pasid, so there should not be any global pasid for the
device.
I suspect this should be a counter of # of pasid domains attached so
that the special flush logic triggers
And rely on the core code to worry about assigning only one domain per
pasid - this should really be a 'set' function.
Jason
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
