Hi Jean-Philippe, On 4/25/19 2:46 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On 24/04/2019 00:31, Jacob Pan wrote: >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..edcc0dd >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/iommu.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ >> +/* >> + * IOMMU user API definitions >> + */ >> + >> +#ifndef _UAPI_IOMMU_H >> +#define _UAPI_IOMMU_H >> + >> +#include <linux/types.h> >> + >> +#define IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_WRITE (1 << 0) /* write */ >> +#define IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_EXEC (1 << 1) /* exec */ >> +#define IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_PRIV (1 << 2) /* privileged */ > > Could we add IOMMU_FAULT_PERM_READ back? The PRI Page Request has both R > and W fields, and R=W=0 encodes the PASID Stop Markers. Even though the > IOMMU drivers currently filter out the Stop Markers, we may want to > inject them into guests at some point in the future, which wouldn't be > possible with the current API.
OK for me. We could add a > IOMMU_FAULT_PAGE_REQUEST_PERM_VALID bit instead, but I still find it > weird to denote the validity of a bitfield using a separate bit. > > Given that three different series now rely on this, how about we send > the fault patches separately for v5.2? I pushed the recoverable fault > support applied on top of this, with the PERM_READ bit and cleaned up > kernel doc, to git://linux-arm.org/linux-jpb.git sva/api my only concern is is it likely to be upstreamed without any actual user? In the positive, of course, I don't have any objection. Thanks Eric > > Thanks, > Jean > _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
