Hi Alex
+ Joerg, accidently missed in the Cc.
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:19:36PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 21:42:16 -0700
> Ashok Raj <ashok....@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > PCIe Spec recommends we can relax ACS requirement for RCIEP devices.
> >
> > PCIe 5.0 Specification.
> > 6.12 Access Control Services (ACS)
> > Implementation of ACS in RCiEPs is permitted but not required. It is
> > explicitly permitted that, within a single Root Complex, some RCiEPs
> > implement ACS and some do not. It is strongly recommended that Root Complex
> > implementations ensure that all accesses originating from RCiEPs
> > (PFs and VFs) without ACS capability are first subjected to processing by
> > the Translation Agent (TA) in the Root Complex before further decoding and
> > processing. The details of such Root Complex handling are outside the scope
> > of this specification.
> >
> > Since Linux didn't give special treatment to allow this exception, certain
> > RCiEP MFD devices are getting grouped in a single iommu group. This
> > doesn't permit a single device to be assigned to a guest for instance.
> >
> > In one vendor system: Device 14.x were grouped in a single IOMMU group.
> >
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/5/devices/0000:00:14.0
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/5/devices/0000:00:14.2
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/5/devices/0000:00:14.3
> >
> > After the patch:
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/5/devices/0000:00:14.0
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/5/devices/0000:00:14.2
> > /sys/kernel/iommu_groups/6/devices/0000:00:14.3 <<< new group
> >
> > 14.0 and 14.2 are integrated devices, but legacy end points.
> > Whereas 14.3 was a PCIe compliant RCiEP.
> >
> > 00:14.3 Network controller: Intel Corporation Device 9df0 (rev 30)
> > Capabilities: [40] Express (v2) Root Complex Integrated Endpoint, MSI 00
> >
> > This permits assigning this device to a guest VM.
> >
> > Fixes: f096c061f552 ("iommu: Rework iommu_group_get_for_pci_dev()")
> > Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok....@intel.com>
> > To: Joerg Roedel <j...@8bytes.org>
> > To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: io...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Darrel Goeddel <dgoed...@forcepoint.com>
> > Cc: Mark Scott <msc...@forcepoint.com>,
> > Cc: Romil Sharma <rsha...@forcepoint.com>
> > Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok....@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > index 2b471419e26c..5744bd65f3e2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> > @@ -1187,7 +1187,20 @@ static struct iommu_group
> > *get_pci_function_alias_group(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > struct pci_dev *tmp = NULL;
> > struct iommu_group *group;
> >
> > - if (!pdev->multifunction || pci_acs_enabled(pdev, REQ_ACS_FLAGS))
> > + /*
> > + * PCI Spec 5.0, Section 6.12 Access Control Service
> > + * Implementation of ACS in RCiEPs is permitted but not required.
> > + * It is explicitly permitted that, within a single Root
> > + * Complex, some RCiEPs implement ACS and some do not. It is
> > + * strongly recommended that Root Complex implementations ensure
> > + * that all accesses originating from RCiEPs (PFs and VFs) without
> > + * ACS capability are first subjected to processing by the Translation
> > + * Agent (TA) in the Root Complex before further decoding and
> > + * processing.
> > + */
>
> Is the language here really strong enough to make this change? ACS is
> an optional feature, so being permitted but not required is rather
> meaningless. The spec is also specifically avoiding the words "must"
> or "shall" and even when emphasized with "strongly", we still only have
> a recommendation that may or may not be honored. This seems like a
> weak basis for assuming that RCiEPs universally honor this
> recommendation. Thanks,
>
We are speaking about PCIe spec, where people write it about 5 years ahead
and every vendor tries to massage their product behavior with vague
words like this.. :)
But honestly for any any RCiEP, or even integrated endpoints, there
is no way to send them except up north. These aren't behind a RP.
I did check with couple folks who are part of the SIG, and seem to agree
that ACS treatment for RCiEP's doesn't mean much.
I understand the language isn't strong, but it doesn't seem like ACS should
be a strong requirement for RCiEP's and reasonable to relax.
What are your thoughts?
Cheers,
Ashok
>
> > + if (!pdev->multifunction ||
> > + (pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END) ||
> > + pci_acs_enabled(pdev, REQ_ACS_FLAGS))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > for_each_pci_dev(tmp) {
>
