On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:53:58PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:31:11PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 08:35:56PM +0000, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > > oN sAt, Feb 22, 2025 at 07:54:09AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
> > > > b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
> > > > index 5aa2e7af58b4..364d8469a480 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c
> > > > @@ -85,6 +85,59 @@ static void arm_smmu_make_nested_domain_ste(
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +int arm_smmu_attach_prepare_vmaster(struct arm_smmu_attach_state
> > > > *state,
> > > > + struct iommu_domain *domain)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct arm_smmu_nested_domain *nested_domain;
> > > > + struct arm_smmu_vmaster *vmaster;
> > > > + unsigned long vsid;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + iommu_group_mutex_assert(state->master->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_NESTED)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + nested_domain = to_smmu_nested_domain(domain);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Skip invalid vSTE */
> > > > + if (!(nested_domain->ste[0] & cpu_to_le64(STRTAB_STE_0_V)))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = iommufd_viommu_get_vdev_id(&nested_domain->vsmmu->core,
> > > > + state->master->dev, &vsid);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + vmaster = kzalloc(sizeof(*vmaster), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!vmaster)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > + vmaster->vsmmu = nested_domain->vsmmu;
> > > > + vmaster->vsid = vsid;
> > > > + state->vmaster = vmaster;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void arm_smmu_attach_commit_vmaster(struct arm_smmu_attach_state
> > > > *state)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct arm_smmu_master *master = state->master;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&master->smmu->streams_mutex);
> > > > + if (state->vmaster != master->vmaster) {
> > > > + kfree(master->vmaster);
> > > > + master->vmaster = state->vmaster;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Does this condition suggest that we might end up calling
> > > `arm_smmu_attach_prepare_vmaster()` multiple times before __actually__
> > > commiting to a vmaster?
> >
> > No. prepare() and commit() are 1:1. How is it interpreted to have
> > "multiple times"?
>
> Ohh alright. I was just confused about why do we need to check:
> `if (state->vmaster != master->vmaster)` ?
Hmm, it's probably not necessary, since we always allocate a new
vmaster pointer to the "state" or set a NULL.
I will clean that up a bit.
Thanks
Nicolin
