> From: Baolu Lu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:19 AM
>
> On 5/15/24 4:50 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Lu Baolu <baolu...@linux.intel.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 10:57 PM
> >>
> >> @@ -308,6 +314,19 @@ int iommufd_hwpt_alloc(struct iommufd_ucmd
> >> *ucmd)
> >> goto out_put_pt;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + if (cmd->flags & IOMMU_HWPT_FAULT_ID_VALID) {
> >> + struct iommufd_fault *fault;
> >> +
> >> + fault = iommufd_get_fault(ucmd, cmd->fault_id);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(fault)) {
> >> + rc = PTR_ERR(fault);
> >> + goto out_hwpt;
> >> + }
> >> + hwpt->fault = fault;
> >> + hwpt->domain->iopf_handler = iommufd_fault_iopf_handler;
> >> + hwpt->domain->fault_data = hwpt;
> >> + }
> >
> > this is nesting specific. why not moving it to the nested_alloc()?
>
> Nesting is currently a use case for userspace I/O page faults, but this
> design should be general enough to support other scenarios as well.
>
Do we allow user page table w/o nesting?
What would be a scenario in which the user doesn't manage the
page table but still want to handle the I/O page fault? The fault
should always be delivered to the owner managing the page table...
