On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 03:43:39 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.t...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > struct intel_svm_dev {
> > > > @@ -698,9 +700,13 @@ struct intel_svm_dev {
> > > > struct intel_svm {
> > > > struct mmu_notifier notifier;
> > > > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > +
> > > > struct intel_iommu *iommu;
> > > > int flags;
> > > > int pasid;
> > > > + int gpasid; /* Guest PASID in case of vSVA bind with
> > > > non-identity host
> > > > + * to guest PASID mapping.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > we don't need to highlight identity or non-identity thing, since
> > > either way shares the same infrastructure here and it is not the
> > > knowledge that the kernel driver should assume
> > >
> > Sorry, I don't get your point.
> >
> > What I meant was that this field "gpasid" is only used for
> > non-identity case. For identity case, we don't have
> > SVM_FLAG_GUEST_PASID.
>
> what's the problem if a guest tries to set gpasid even in identity
> case? do you want to add check to reject it? Also I remember we
> discussed before that we want to provide a consistent interface
> to other consumer e.g. KVM to setup VMCS PASID translation table.
> In that case, regardless of identity or non-identity, we need provide
> such mapping info.
The solution is in flux a little. For KVM to set up VMCS, we are
planning to use IOASID set private ID as guest PASID. So this part of
the code will go away, i.e. G-H PASID mapping will no longer stored in
IOMMU driver. Perhaps we can address this after the transition?
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
