On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 06:41:00AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:01 PM
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:38:36PM +0800, Liu Yi L wrote:
> > > This patch adds VFIO_DEVICE_BIND_IOMMUFD for userspace to bind the
> > vfio
> > > device to an iommufd. No VFIO_DEVICE_UNBIND_IOMMUFD interface is
> > provided
> > > because it's implicitly done when the device fd is closed.
> > >
> > > In concept a vfio device can be bound to multiple iommufds, each hosting
> > > a subset of I/O address spaces attached by this device.
> > 
> > I really feel like this many<->many mapping between devices is going
> > to be super-confusing, and therefore make it really hard to be
> > confident we have all the rules right for proper isolation.
> 
> Based on new discussion on group ownership part (patch06), I feel this
> many<->many relationship will disappear. The context fd (either container
> or iommufd) will uniquely mark the ownership on a physical device and
> its group. With this design it's impractical to have one device bound
> to multiple iommufds. Actually I don't think this is a compelling usage
> in reality. The previous rationale was that no need to impose such restriction
> if no special reason... and now we have a reason. 😊
> 
> Jason, are you OK with this simplification?
> 
> > 
> > That's why I was suggesting a concept like endpoints, to break this
> > into two many<->one relationships.  I'm ok if that isn't visible in
> > the user API, but I think this is going to be really hard to keep
> > track of if it isn't explicit somewhere in the internals.
> > 
> 
> I think this endpoint concept is represented by ioas_device_info in
> patch14:
> 
> +/*
> + * An ioas_device_info object is created per each successful attaching
> + * request. A list of objects are maintained per ioas when the address
> + * space is shared by multiple devices.
> + */
> +struct ioas_device_info {
> +	struct iommufd_device *idev;
> +	struct list_head next;
>  };
> 
> currently it's 1:1 mapping before this object and iommufd_device, 
> because no pasid support yet.

Ok, I haven't read that far in the series yet.

> We can rename it to struct ioas_endpoint if it makes you feel
> better.

Meh.  The concept is much more important than the name.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson