Hi Cédric,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] backends/iommufd: Add a helper to invalidate user-
>managed HWPT
>
>Hello Zhenzhong,
>
>On 5/28/25 08:04, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> This helper passes cache invalidation request from guest to invalidate
>> stage-1 page table cache in host hardware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicol...@nvidia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   include/system/iommufd.h |  4 ++++
>>   backends/iommufd.c       | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   backends/trace-events    |  1 +
>>   3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/system/iommufd.h b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> index cbab75bfbf..5399519626 100644
>> --- a/include/system/iommufd.h
>> +++ b/include/system/iommufd.h
>> @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ bool
>iommufd_backend_get_dirty_bitmap(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t hwpt_id,
>>                                         uint64_t iova, ram_addr_t size,
>>                                         uint64_t page_size, uint64_t *data,
>>                                         Error **errp);
>> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
>> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t 
>> entry_len,
>> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
>> +                                      Error **errp);
>>
>>   #define TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE_IOMMUFD
>TYPE_HOST_IOMMU_DEVICE "-iommufd"
>>   #endif
>> diff --git a/backends/iommufd.c b/backends/iommufd.c
>> index b73f75cd0b..c8788a6438 100644
>> --- a/backends/iommufd.c
>> +++ b/backends/iommufd.c
>> @@ -311,6 +311,39 @@ bool
>iommufd_backend_get_device_info(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t devid,
>>       return true;
>>   }
>>
>> +bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, uint32_t id,
>> +                                      uint32_t data_type, uint32_t 
>> entry_len,
>> +                                      uint32_t *entry_num, void *data_ptr,
>> +                                      Error **errp)
>> +{
>> +    int ret, fd = be->fd;
>> +    uint32_t total_entries = *entry_num;
>> +    struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate cache = {
>> +        .size = sizeof(cache),
>> +        .hwpt_id = id,
>> +        .data_type = data_type,
>> +        .entry_len = entry_len,
>> +        .entry_num = total_entries,
>> +        .data_uptr = (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
>
>Minor, other helpers use a 'data' variable name.

Will do.

>
>> +    };
>> +
>> +    ret = ioctl(fd, IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE, &cache);
>> +    trace_iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(fd, id, data_type, entry_len,
>> +                                           total_entries, cache.entry_num,
>> +                                           (uintptr_t)data_ptr,
>> +                                           ret ? errno : 0);
>> +    if (ret) {
>> +        *entry_num = cache.entry_num;
>> +        error_setg_errno(errp, errno, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE failed:"
>> +                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
>> +                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
>> +    } else {
>> +        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);
>
>Killing the VMM because a kernel device ioctl failed is brute force.
>Can't we update the 'Error *' parameter instead to report that the
>invalidation is partial or something went wrong ?

Will do, like below:

--- a/backends/iommufd.c
+++ b/backends/iommufd.c
@@ -339,7 +339,10 @@ bool iommufd_backend_invalidate_cache(IOMMUFDBackend *be, 
uint32_t id,
                          " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
                          total_entries, cache.entry_num);
     } else {
-        g_assert(total_entries == cache.entry_num);
+        error_setg_errno(errp, -EFAULT, "IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE succeed with 
unprocessed entries:"
+                         " totally %d entries, processed %d entries",
+                         total_entries, cache.entry_num);
+        ret = -EFAULT;
     }

     return !ret;

>
>What kind of errors are we trying to catch ?

I'm taking it as a kernel bug when ret = 0 and total_entries != cache.entry_num

>
>Looking at the kernel iommufd_hwpt_invalidate() routine and
>intel_nested_cache_invalidate_user(), it doesn't seem possible to
>return a different number of cache entries. Are you anticipating
>other implementations (sMMU) ?

Yes, same for sMMU's arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate() and selftest's
mock_viommu_cache_invalidate() and mock_domain_cache_invalidate_user().

I'm not sure if this should apply to all types of IOMMUs, uAPI doc doesn't talk 
about it.

@Liu, Yi L, @nicol...@nvidia.com, @Jason Gunthorpe, should I treat ret = 0 and 
total_entries != cache.entry_num as a kernel bug or not?

Thanks
Zhenzhong

Reply via email to