Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] iommu: Return -EMEDIUMTYPE for incompatible domain and device/group

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

On 2022-09-07 18:00, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 03:23:09PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2022-09-07 14:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>>>>> Provide a dedicated errno from the IOMMU driver during attach that the
>>>>> reason attached failed is because of domain incompatability. EMEDIUMTYPE
>>>>> is chosen because it is never used within the iommu subsystem today and
>>>>> evokes a sense that the 'medium' aka the domain is incompatible.
>>>>
>>>> I am not a fan of re-using EMEDIUMTYPE or any other special value. What
>>>> is needed here in EINVAL, but with a way to tell the caller which of the
>>>> function parameters is actually invalid.
>>>
>>> Using errnos to indicate the nature of failure is a well established
>>> unix practice, it is why we have hundreds of error codes and don't
>>> just return -EINVAL for everything.
>>>
>>> What don't you like about it?
>>>
>>> Would you be happier if we wrote it like
>>>
>>>    #define IOMMU_EINCOMPATIBLE_DEVICE xx
>>>
>>> Which tells "which of the function parameters is actually invalid" ?
>>
>> FWIW, we're now very close to being able to validate dev->iommu against
>> where the domain came from in core code, and so short-circuit ->attach_dev
>> entirely if they don't match.
> 
> I don't think this is a long term direction. We have systems now with
> a number of SMMU blocks and we really are going to see a need that
> they share the iommu_domains so we don't have unncessary overheads
> from duplicated io page table memory.
> 
> So ultimately I'd expect to pass the iommu_domain to the driver and
> the driver will decide if the page table memory it represents is
> compatible or not. Restricting to only the same iommu instance isn't
> good..

Who said IOMMU instance? As a reminder, the patch I currently have[1] is 
matching the driver (via the device ops), which happens to be entirely 
compatible with drivers supporting cross-instance domains. Mostly 
because we already have drivers that support cross-instance domains and 
callers that use them.

>> At that point -EINVAL at the driver callback level could be assumed
>> to refer to the domain argument, while anything else could be taken
>> as something going unexpectedly wrong when the attach may otherwise
>> have worked. I've forgotten if we actually had a valid case anywhere
>> for "this is my device but even if you retry with a different domain
>> it's still never going to work", but I think we wouldn't actually
>> need that anyway - it should be clear enough to a caller that if
>> attaching to an existing domain fails, then allocating a fresh
>> domain and attaching also fails, that's the point to give up.
> 
> The point was to have clear error handling, we either have permenent
> errors or 'this domain will never work with this device error'.
> 
> If we treat all error as temporary and just retry randomly it can
> create a mess. For instance we might fail to attach to a perfectly
> compatible domain due to ENOMEM or something and then go on to
> successfully a create a new 2nd domain, just due to races.
> 
> We can certainly code the try everything then allocate scheme, it is
> just much more fragile than having definitive error codes.

Again, not what I was suggesting. In fact the nature of 
iommu_attach_group() already rules out bogus devices getting this far, 
so all a driver currently has to worry about is compatibility of a 
device that it definitely probed with a domain that it definitely 
allocated. Therefore, from a caller's point of view, if attaching to an 
existing domain returns -EINVAL, try another domain; multiple different 
existing domains can be tried, and may also return -EINVAL for the same 
or different reasons; the final attempt is to allocate a fresh domain 
and attach to that, which should always be nominally valid and *never* 
return -EINVAL. If any attempt returns any other error, bail out down 
the usual "this should have worked but something went wrong" path. Even 
if any driver did have a nonsensical "nothing went wrong, I just can't 
attach my device to any of my domains" case, I don't think it would 
really need distinguishing from any other general error anyway.

Once multiple drivers are in play, the only addition is that the 
"gatekeeper" check inside iommu_attach_group() may also return -EINVAL 
if the device is managed by a different driver, since that still fits 
the same "try again with a different domain" message to the caller.

It's actually quite neat - basically the exact same thing we've tried to 
do with -EMEDIUMTYPE here, but more self-explanatory, since the fact is 
that a domain itself should never be invalid for attaching to via its 
own ops, and a group should never be inherently invalid for attaching to 
a suitable domain, it is only ever a particular combination of group (or 
device at the internal level) and domain that may not be valid together. 
Thus as long as we can maintain that basic guarantee that attaching a 
group to a newly allocated domain can only ever fail for resource 
allocation reasons and not some spurious "incompatibility", then we 
don't need any obscure trickery, and a single, clear, error code is in 
fact enough to say all that needs to be said.

Whether iommu_attach_device() should also join the party and start 
rejecting non-singleton-group devices with a different error, or 
maintain its current behaviour since its legacy users already have their 
expectations set, is another matter in its own right.

Cheers,
Robin.

[1] 
https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-rm/-/commit/683cdff1b2d4ae11f56e38d93b37e66e8c939fc9